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

The plaintiff (appellant) instituted a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding 2½ dismil of abadi land in Village Bhanwarmara

He claimed possession since 2000 and title via an abadi patta granted on 12.11.2009 pursuant to a Gram Panchayat resolution

The defendants contested the suit, asserting the patta was forged and had been cancelled by a Gram Sabha resolution dated 25.06.2014

Revenue authorities (Sub-Divisional Officer) upheld the cancellation and directed encroachment proceedings against the plaintiff

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the patta fraudulent

The First Appellate Court affirmed this dismissal upon re-appreciation of evidence

1. Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the fraudulent nature and cancellation of the abadi patta were perverse or contrary to the material on record

2. Whether the appeal involves any "substantial question of law" as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which limits the jurisdiction of the High Court in Second Appeals to cases involving a "substantial question of law"

The court followed the established principle that concurrent findings of fact are binding unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled law

The court relied on the precedent State of Rajasthan and others v. Shiv Dayal and another (2019) 8 SCC 637, which mandates that concurrent findings may only be assailed if they are recorded de hors the pleadings, based on misreading of material evidence, or are judicially unreasonable

The High Court examined the records and noted that the lower courts’ findings were rooted in substantial evidence, including Gram Sabha resolutions, encroachment reports, panchanamas, and eviction warrants

A critical factor was the plaintiff’s own admission during cross-examination that encroachment proceedings had been initiated and an eviction warrant issued against him regarding the suit land

The court found that because the patta (the sole basis of the plaintiff’s title claim) was proven to be fraudulently entered in the register and subsequently cancelled, the plaintiff failed to establish any lawful right or interest

The High Court reasoned that the appellant’s arguments were essentially requests for the re-appreciation of evidence, which does not constitute a "substantial question of law"

In the absence of any perversity or misapplication of law in the lower courts' concurrent findings, the court determined there was no merit for interference

The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, confirming the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit