Concurrent findings of fact are binding in second appeal absent perversity or legal error.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding Khasra No. 609/1 (0.725 hectares) in Village Guma, alleging the land was ancestral property that came into his possession through partition

The Plaintiff contended that due to a clerical error, the land was wrongly recorded in the name of the Respondent’s (Defendant No. 1) predecessor, despite the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession for over 50 years and a 2002 Panchayat agreement to correct the records

Defendant No. 1 asserted ownership and possession based on existing revenue records

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 23.12.2014, finding the Plaintiff failed to establish title

The First Appellate Court affirmed this dismissal on 06.10.2015

The Appellant subsequently moved the High Court in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

1. Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were perverse or contrary to the evidence on record regarding the Plaintiff’s title and possession

2. Whether the appeal involves any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the CPC

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which limits the High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals to cases involving a "substantial question of law"

Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled law

State of Rajasthan and others v. Shiv Dayal and another (2019) 8 SCC 637, which establishes that a concurrent finding of fact is only bad in law if recorded de hors the pleadings, based on misreading of material evidence, or if no judicial mind could reasonably reach such a decision

The High Court observed that both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently found that the Plaintiff failed to prove title or possession

The Court noted that the documents provided by the Plaintiff, including the Panchayat agreement and demarcation report, did not establish legal title or specifically relate to the suit property

Conversely, the revenue records produced by Defendant No. 1 clearly supported his ownership and possession

The Court reasoned that the Plaintiff failed to meet the "preponderance of probability" standard

In evaluating the scope of Section 100 CPC, the Court determined that the Appellant’s arguments were essentially challenges to findings of fact and did not raise any substantial question of law

No perversity or misapplication of law was found in the lower courts' appreciation of evidence

The Court held that in the absence of a substantial question of law and proof of title or possession, no interference was warranted under Section 100 of the CPC