A permissive occupant cannot deny the title of the owner under whom possession continued.

The Catholic Diocese of Karwar sued to evict Ramu Krishna Gouda from a servant’s quarter, asserting ownership under a 1978 sale deed and alleging that the defendant’s father had occupied the premises as a servant of the previous owner

The defendant disputed the Diocese’s title, claimed that the property belonged to the Government and relied on revenue records; he also claimed that his father had occupied the premises for many years

After an initial dismissal and remand, the trial court decreed the suit for possession. The first appellate court affirmed, and the defendant appealed under Section 100 CPC

1. Whether the Diocese established its title and entitlement to possession despite the defendant’s challenge based on government revenue records and the alleged government ownership of the property

2. Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below disclosed an error giving rise to a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC

The appeal was brought under Section 100 CPC, which permits a second appeal only where a substantial question of law arises.

The Court applied the principle that a person whose possession began permissively through the former owner and continued under the plaintiff institution cannot rely merely on that possession to deny the institution’s title or right to recover possession.

The Court found that the Diocese produced a 1978 sale deed in its favour and evidence that revenue entries were subsequently mutated in its name.

It also noted that the defendant’s own account accepted the transfer of the property to the Diocese, while asserting that his father had been allowed to remain in the quarters.

The defendant’s revenue records showed earlier government entries and the presence of a Forest Officer, but he produced no other material demonstrating that the Government had exercised ownership over the suit property.

Because the defendant’s occupation was permissive and the courts below had concurrently assessed the evidence, the Court found no error warranting second-appellate interference.

It dismissed the regular second appeal, leaving in force the decree directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the Diocese.