https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199145 A second appellate court cannot reappreciate evidence to disturb concurrent findings of fact unless those findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. The Court also reaffirmed that possession beginning under a lease remains permissive unless tenancy is clearly terminated and hostile possession is openly asserted and brought home to the landlord. On the facts, the defendant failed to prove surrender, hostile re-entry, or adverse possession, and the suit was not barred by limitation under Article 139 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The plaintiff's title and possession were upheld. en-us Fri, 06 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2022 14:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199145 A second appellate court cannot reappreciate evidence to disturb concurrent findings of fact unless those findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. The Court also reaffirmed that possession beginning under a lease remains permissive unless tenancy is clearly terminated and hostile possession is openly asserted and brought home to the landlord. On the facts, the defendant failed to prove surrender, hostile re-entry, or adverse possession, and the suit was not barred by limitation under Article 139 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The plaintiff's title and possession were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199145