Topic
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs second appeals to High Courts on substantial questions of law, not mere factual disputes, under Indian civil litigation.
Court clarified that revenue entries alone cannot establish dedication or adverse possession, shifting burden to claimants to prove unequivocal intent and hostile possession. This affects parties relying solely on revenue records in property disputes.
The Supreme Court set aside the Indore High Court’s dismissal of a co-ownership suit, restoring the lower courts’ decree. It held that Section 100 CPC permits appellate review only on substantial questions of law, revenue mutations do not extinguish title and limitation begins when the impediment is discovered, shaping future land co-ownership litigation.
Calcutta HC held that the limitation for specific-performance begins when the plaintiff first learned of the predecessor’s refusal in 2007, making the suit time-barred, while the defendants’ 2016 possession counter-claim fell within the 12-year period under Article 65 and was upheld, clarifying limitation start-points in property-sale disputes.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court holds that property inherited from a non-occupancy tenant under statutory vesting ceases to be ancestral and becomes self-acquired, making it freely disposable by will. Concurrent findings of fact on the execution of a will, once affirmed by two lower courts, cannot be reappreciated in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, reinforcing finality in testamentary disputes affecting heirs and beneficiaries.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a partial partition suit is legally unsustainable if it omits any coparcenary property, even if settled via gift deeds. The dismissal underscores the mandatory inclusion of all joint family assets in partition claims, impacting Hindu joint family property disputes.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act is established by proving the agreement of sale and payment endorsements, even if the property was subsequently sold to others in a collusive manner. The Court emphasized that witness admissions and documentary evidence outweigh technical denials, setting a precedent for land dispute resolutions.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that adverse possession claims require rigorous proof of hostile intent, a definite commencement date, and uninterrupted possession for 12 years. Concurrent factual findings on these elements are binding unless perverse, reinforcing the high evidentiary burden on claimants.
When a registered sale deed's execution is admitted, title transfers immediately-mere non-payment of consideration does not invalidate it. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving fraud, collusion, or illegality to set it aside, and failure to challenge within limitation periods bars relief. This reinforces the sanctity of registered property transfers and clarifies remedies for unpaid consideration as separate recovery actions.
Chhattisgarh High Court rules that an oral partition under the Hindu Succession Act is invalid unless all heirs, including daughters, consent. Sale deeds executed without such consent are void, reinforcing daughters' coparcenary rights and setting a precedent for joint family property disputes.
Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses second appeal under Section 100 CPC, holding that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with unless perverse or illegal.
Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms that second appeals under Section 100 CPC cannot re-appreciate evidence; concurrent findings of fact are binding unless perverse or legally flawed.