Second appeal dismissed at the admission stage. The High Court found no substantial question of law or perversity in the lower courts' findings regarding joint family property extent.
The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SECOND APPEAL No.8 of 2019
======================================================
Sureshwari Prasad Singh, S/o Late Muneshwar Prasad Singh Vill.- Gundi, P.s.- Barhara, Distt.- Bhojpur
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. S. Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Om Prakash Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Abhay Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the point
7 26-06-2023
Patna High Court SA No.8 of 2019(7) dt.26-06-2023
2/4
of admission.
Patna High Court SA No.8 of 2019(7) dt.26-06-2023 3/4
only with regard to extent of the joint family property as some of the properties have been held to be separated from the joint family, which is challenged by the appellant.
“6. It appears to us that in second appeal the High Court was in error in examining the evidence and then reversing the finding of the trial court in the lower appellate court by holding that the possession of the respondents satisfied the requirements of adverse possession. Both the trial
Patna High Court SA No.8 of 2019(7) dt.26-06-2023
4/4
court and the lower appellate court had, in no uncertain terms, come to the conclusion that the respondents had failed to establish by positive evidence that their possession of the disputed property was hostile to the real owner and in denial of his title. Even if the finding of fact was wrong, in our opinion this finding of fact could not be disturbed specially when the High Court has not come to the conclusion that the same was not perverse nor was based on no evidence. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court have discussed the evidence on the record and then had come to the conclusion that the defence in Suit No. 645 of 1970, namely, the respondents herein, had failed in showing that they had perfected their title by adverse possession. It is to be noted that the issue in this regard placed the burden of proof on the respondents and as they had not led evidence to show that they had perfected that title, their plea had to fail.”
non-consideration of evidence in the judgments of the learned courts below.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/- U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC to admit the second appeal challenging the trial court’s finding on the extent of joint family property.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below suffer from perversity or non-consideration of evidence regarding the disposal of suit land.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M. Nadar Kesavan Nadar Vs. Narayanan Nadar Kunjan NadarReferred¶6
(2000) 10 SCC 244 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sureshwari Prasad Singh
Nareshwar Prasad Singh
Vijay Kumar Singh
Lakshuman Singh
Vijay Kumar Singh
Tinku Singh
Arun Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
