LAW FOR ALL

When there is a title dispute - internal arrangements/transactions between the set of one party is immaterial ,on their failure to prove adverse possession. No disputed question arose under sec.100 C.P.C. for high court to interfere = whether the respondents were able to establish their adverse possession over the suit-land as against the State so as to entitle them to claim title in their favour over the suit-land - The respondents having set up this plea were required to prove it with the aid of satisfactory evidence as the burden of proof lay on them being the plaintiffs. As observed (supra), both the courts held on appreciation of evidence that the respondents were failed to establish their adverse possession over the suit-land qua State for want of adequate evidence. It being a question of fact, a finding on this question was binding on the High Court unless any error of law in such finding had been pointed out. It was not so pointed out.= the dispute in this case was between the respondents on the one hand and the State on the other relating to the title which was claimed by the respondents on the basis of their adverse possession and to decide this question, execution of gift inter se two members of respondents’ family was of no relevance. In these circumstances, the alleged gift whether executed between the two members of respondents’ family or not and if so whether it was valid or not, did not arise out of the case In these circumstances, the alleged gift whether executed between the two members of respondents’ family or not and if so whether it was valid or not, did not arise out of the case. It is apart from the fact that it did not constitute any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. In the light of foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is not legally sustainable and is accordingly liable to be set aside.