Concurrent findings of encroachment cannot be disturbed absent a substantial question of law.

The respondent-plaintiff claimed ownership of 22,055 sq. metres of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 1087/40, Sami, Patan, under a registered sale deed dated 23 September 2010. He alleged that the appellant–Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Patan (“APMC”), had encroached upon 14,027 sq. metres of the land and constructed shops over 3,648 sq. metres, seeking declaration of title, removal of the construction, possession, and permanent injunction.

The Trial Court decreed the suit on 6 December 2018 after relying, inter alia, on the DILR survey map and evidence of the Maintenance Surveyor.

The First Appellate Court dismissed APMC’s Regular Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2019 on 18 March 2026 and affirmed the decree.

In the second appeal, APMC challenged the concurrent findings, alleging non-joinder of shop owners, refusal of additional evidence, absence of statutory notice, manipulation of survey records, and failure to prove encroachment.

Whether the concurrent findings that APMC had encroached upon the plaintiff’s land were perverse or involved a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.

Whether the suit was liable to fail for non-joinder of the shop owners as necessary parties.

Whether the First Appellate Court erred in refusing to admit APMC’s proposed additional evidence, particularly the old map.

Whether the DILR had jurisdiction to measure the suit land and prepare the survey map relied upon by the plaintiff.

Whether the alleged absence of statutory notice and dispute regarding the survey number invalidated the suit or the decree.

The Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and not merely to reappreciate concurrent findings of fact.

Relying on Russi Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 555, and the authorities referred to therein, including Bholaram v. Ameerchand, Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai, Kashibai w/o Lachiram v. Parwatibai w/o Lachiram, and Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann, the Court held that factual findings, even if erroneous, cannot ordinarily be disturbed in second appeal unless vitiated by perversity or a clear error of law.

The Court further applied the principle that an objection regarding non-joinder, if not raised before the Trial Court, cannot ordinarily be used at the appellate stage to invalidate the decree.

It also accepted the City Survey Manual framework under which DILR could measure agricultural land situated within a city-survey area, including agricultural land subsequently used for non-agricultural purposes.

The Court found that the plaintiff’s registered sale deed established his title, while the DILR Maintenance Surveyor’s testimony and map at Exhibit 54 established that APMC’s construction encroached upon Survey No. 1087/40.

Exhibit 58, relied upon during cross-examination, also showed that APMC’s Survey No. 912 and the plaintiff’s Survey No. 1087/40 were adjoining.

APMC produced no effective rebuttal evidence and its Secretary admitted that the construction stood on Survey No. 1087/40; he was also unable to produce any Government order establishing APMC’s ownership of that land.

The non-joinder objection was rejected because it had not been pleaded in the written statement, no corresponding issue had been framed, and the plaintiff’s case was directed against APMC as the encroaching defendant.

Refusal of additional evidence was upheld because APMC could have produced the old map during the trial but failed to do so.

The challenge to the DILR’s authority was rejected as the land was agricultural and the applicable City Survey Manual permitted such measurement.

The Court also noted that APMC had constructed and sold the shops despite a Panchayat notice to stop construction, thereby creating third-party rights after the alleged encroachment.

The second appeal was dismissed with costs of ₹50,000, payable by APMC to the plaintiff within one month, with liberty to recover the amount through execution in case of default.

The request to suspend the judgment for four weeks was rejected in view of APMC’s conduct and the pending execution proceedings.

The Civil Application for stay was consequently disposed of as having become infructuous.