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

The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 115/Paiki, admeasuring 0 Acre 8 Gunthas, and alleged that the defendants had encroached upon it from the western side by fencing and merging the disputed portion with their adjoining land.

She sought declarations, removal of the alleged encroachment, appointment of a Court Commissioner if necessary, and a permanent injunction.

The defendants denied the claim but did not lead oral or documentary evidence.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 11 April 2018, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove her ownership and the alleged encroachment.

The First Appellate Court dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No. 186 of 2018 and confirmed that decree on 3 March 2026.

The plaintiff therefore filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

1. Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below—that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the suit land and encroachment by the defendants—were perverse, grossly erroneous, or otherwise liable to interference in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

2. Whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proving the alleged encroachment through the revenue records, measurement sheet, and map produced in evidence, notwithstanding the defendants’ failure to lead evidence.

3. Whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law warranting admission under Section 100 CPC.

The Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and the High Court ordinarily cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, grossly erroneous, contrary to mandatory or settled law, based on inadmissible evidence, or arrived at without evidence.

The Court relied on Russi Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 555, for the limited scope of interference with findings of fact; Jaichand (Dead) through LRs v. Sahnulal , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864; Bholaram v. Ameerchand , (1981) 2 SCC 414; Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai (Dead) by LRs. , (2005) 10 SCC 553; Kashibai w/o Lachiram v. Parwatibai w/o Lachiram , (1995) 6 SCC 213; and Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) by LRs. , AIR 2001 SC 1273.

The Court further applied the rule that the burden of proving the pleaded case rests on the plaintiff and cannot be discharged merely by relying on the weakness of the defence.

The Court held that the defendants’ failure to adduce evidence did not relieve the plaintiff of proving both her title and the alleged encroachment.

The Trial Court had recorded the plaintiff’s admission in cross-examination that no evidence had been produced in support of the encroachment allegation.

The plaintiff also admitted that a portion of the land had been acquired for the Mahi Canal, but failed to establish the extent of such acquisition.

Consequently, the measurement sheet and map at Exhibit 44 could not safely establish encroachment.

Further, the author of the measurement sheet was not examined, and the only witness examined for the plaintiff was her power-of-attorney holder.

In these circumstances, the concurrent findings that encroachment was not proved were neither perverse nor grossly erroneous.

Since the plaintiff failed on the essential issue of encroachment, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the question of ownership in greater detail.

No substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 CPC.

It held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were supported by the evidence and did not disclose perversity or any substantial question of law.

The second appeal was dismissed, the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were confirmed, and there was no order as to costs.

The decree was directed to be drawn accordingly.