An evidence-supported appellate finding of encroachment raises no substantial question of law in second appeal.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendant Siddamma had encroached on their land in Sy. No. 34/3A by constructing a compound wall, and sued for its removal and possession of the affected portion.

Siddamma denied encroachment, asserting that the boundaries had been fixed and fencing existed before her purchase.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the property insufficiently identifiable and the encroachment unproved; it also declined to rely on the commissioner’s report.

The first appellate court reversed that decision in part, accepted the property description and commissioner’s evidence, and directed removal of the encroaching wall.

Siddamma’s legal representatives challenged that decree in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Whether the first appellate court was justified in relying on the commissioner’s report and other evidence to find that the defendant had encroached on the plaintiffs’ property

Whether the plaintiffs’ property was sufficiently identified under Order VII Rule 3 CPC, and whether a declaration of title was necessary to grant the relief sought

Whether the appeal raised a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC

Section 100 CPC limits a High Court’s jurisdiction in a regular second appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law.

Order VII Rule 3 CPC requires immovable property in a plaint to be described sufficiently to identify it; the Court accepted that a survey number and hand sketch map could satisfy that requirement in this case.

The Court also treated the commissioner’s report and deposition as evidence to be assessed with the other material on record, and held that a declaration was unnecessary where the parties did not dispute their respective ownership and title.

No precedent was cited.

The Court found that the commissioner had carried out the measurement after notice and in the parties’ presence, and that the defendant had not shown that the alleged deficiencies in the report made it unreliable.

The report corresponded with the plaintiffs’ sketch, while the defendant had produced no evidence to support her claims of prior boundary fixation or fencing beside the wall.

The survey number and sketch sufficiently identified the disputed land, and, because title to the parties’ respective portions was not contested, the plaintiffs were not required to seek a declaration.

The first appellate court’s factual findings therefore disclosed no basis for interference in second appeal.

The High Court dismissed the regular second appeal, leaving the first appellate court’s decree directing removal of the encroaching compound wall undisturbed.

Any pending applications were disposed of as not surviving for consideration.