Failure to prove correlation between old and new Khasra numbers precludes declaration of title in Abadi lands.

The Appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding 1250 sq. ft. of Abadi land in Khasra No. 686

He claimed the land was part of old Khasra Nos. 428/02 and 424/01, purchased by his father and himself via registered sale deeds in 1968 and 1983, respectively

He alleged that Defendant No. 2 manipulated Gram Sabha records in 2006 to record his own name and subsequently sold the land to Defendant No. 1 via a registered sale deed in 2007

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 21.07.2017, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the identity/overlap of the purchased Khasra numbers with the suit property

The First Appellate Court affirmed this dismissal on 29.06.2018 and rejected an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC

1. Whether the plaintiff established a valid title over the suit property described in Schedule-A

2. Whether the findings of the lower courts were perverse or based on a misreading of evidence

3. Whether the rejection of the application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the First Appellate Court was legally sustainable

4. Whether the appeal presents any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC

The Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which dictates that a second appeal is maintainable only if it involves a "substantial question of law"

It relied on Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (AIR 1962 SC 1314) and Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Saraswati & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273) to emphasize that the formulation of such a question is a sine qua non for admission

the Court applied Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC regarding the restricted conditions under which an appellate court may permit additional evidence

The High Court observed that the Trial Court’s dismissal was based on a factual failure: the plaintiff produced sale deeds for old Khasra numbers but failed to provide any revenue renumbering lists, settlement records, or Khasra entries to prove those specific lands now formed part of Khasra No. 686

The Court found that both lower courts properly appreciated the evidence, noting that Defendant No. 2 was in possession and had validly transferred title to Defendant No. 1

Regarding the Order 41 Rule 27 application, the Court held that the First Appellate Court provided cogent reasons for rejection, as the statutory requirements for admitting late evidence were not satisfied

Since the findings were purely factual and concurrent, the Court determined there was no perversity or illegality that would constitute a substantial question of law

The Court dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, affirming the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. All pending applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made