Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal absent a substantial question of law.

The plaintiff challenged a registered sale deed dated 26 November 2010 by which her father-in-law transferred the suit property to the defendant, his daughter.

She sought cancellation of the deed and protection of her possession, alleging that the property was ancestral and that the transaction was a camouflage.

The Trial Court dismissed her suit, allowed the defendant’s counterclaim in part, declared the defendant sole owner, and directed the plaintiff to hand over possession.

The First Appellate Court affirmed.

In the second appeal, the defendant’s counsel stated that possession had been obtained through execution proceedings.

1. Whether the concurrent findings against the plaintiff disclosed perversity, gross error, or another basis for interference under Section 100 CPC.

2. Whether the plaintiff established a right to have the registered sale deed set aside or to protect her possession against the defendant, the deed-holder.

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confines second appeals to cases involving a substantial question of law; the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb factual findings merely because they are alleged to be erroneous.

Interference may be warranted where findings are, for example, contrary to mandatory law or based on inadmissible evidence or no evidence.

The Court relied on Russi Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 555, and Jaichand (Dead) through LRs v. Sahnulal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864, among other precedents, on the limits of second-appellate review.

It also applied the principles that a registered document carries presumptive value and that a challenge based on fraud or forgery requires proof.

The Court found no perversity or gross irregularity in the concurrent findings.

The plaintiff had not proved that the property was ancestral; the property stood in the father-in-law’s name, and the record disclosed no proved fraud or forgery in the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant.

As the defendant held title and the plaintiff established no direct right, title, or interest in the property, the Court found no legal basis to protect the plaintiff’s possession against her.

The proposed questions did not meet the threshold for substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC.

It confirmed the judgments and decrees of the courts below, disposed of the connected stay application, directed that a decree be drawn, and made no order as to costs.