A plaintiff cannot obtain declaratory or injunctive relief without establishing the suit property's identity.

The plaintiffs claimed title to two adjoining portions of land, purchased by separate sale deeds dated 29 October 1993, and sought declaration, damages, permanent injunction, and removal of construction.

The first defendant claimed through a sale deed in favour of his father dated 2 November 1987.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiffs had not adequately identified the property; the first appellate court affirmed.

In the second appeal, the plaintiffs also sought to produce two letters from 1981 as additional evidence.

1. Whether the plaintiffs established the identity of the property claimed under their sale deeds and were entitled to the reliefs sought

2. Whether the concurrent dismissal of the suit raised a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC

3. Whether the two 1981 letters could be received as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

The Court applied the principle that property boundaries may prevail over the survey number and extent when identifying land.

It also applied Section 100 CPC, under which a second appeal lies only where a substantial question of law is involved.

It also applied Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, which permits additional evidence only where its requirements are met.

No precedent was cited.

The Court found that the commissioner’s report placed the disputed property in Survey No. 36/3, but the plaintiffs’ sale-deed boundaries and extent did not correspond with the suit property, while the first defendant’s boundaries and extent did.

The Court also noted that the plaintiffs had purchased vacant land but described the suit property by a door number, and concluded that they had failed to establish the property’s identity; without that proof, the claimed reliefs could not be granted.

The concurrent findings were based on the evidence and disclosed no substantial question of law.

The 1981 letters were photocopies, had not been produced before the courts below without adequate explanation, and were not necessary to decide the appeal; the application therefore did not satisfy Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

It also dismissed C.M.P. No. 7335 of 2025 seeking to adduce additional evidence.

No costs were awarded.