A first appellate court cannot reverse a supported possession finding without addressing the material evidence.

The plaintiff sued for a permanent injunction concerning land in Sy. No. 28/34, measuring 4 acres 15 guntas, claiming possession under a grant and relying on the saguvali chit and revenue records.

The defendants denied his claim and asserted grants and possession over other survey lands; they produced no documentary evidence in support.

The Trial Court decreed the suit on the plaintiff’s evidence, including the grant and revenue records.

The First Appellate Court allowed the defendants’ appeal and set aside the decree. The plaintiff appealed under Section 100 CPC.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s decree without assigning appropriate reasons to overcome its findings, thereby committing an illegality?

The appeal was considered under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits a second appeal on a substantial question of law.

The Court’s reasoning applied the principles that a claim to possession may be assessed on the oral and documentary evidence on record, and that a first appellate court reversing a trial court’s findings must engage with the evidence and provide reasons for its decision.

The Trial Court had relied on the plaintiff’s saguvali chit, mutation records, RTCs, tax receipts and patta book as evidence of possession, while the defendants had produced no documents supporting their asserted claims.

The High Court found that the First Appellate Court failed to address this evidence, the defendants’ lack of proof, and the inconsistencies in their testimony; it also placed undue weight on an alleged overwriting in the patta book.

Reversal on that basis was not supported by the record or adequate reasoning.

It restored the Trial Court’s decree and decreed the plaintiff’s suit as prayed.