Failure to Prove Rectification of Revenue Records and Survey Number Identity Bars Claim for Title.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) filed a civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession regarding land bearing Khasra No. 103/6/3 (area 0.202 hectares) in Village Uchchabhatti

The Plaintiff claimed he purchased Khasra No. 103/6/2 in 2006, which was later renumbered as 103/6/3 after mutation

The Defendants contended that they were in possession of Khasra No. 103/6 since 1995 and denied the existence of Khasra No. 103/6/3 in the Plaintiff's name

Both the Trial Court (Raigarh) and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, finding that the Plaintiff failed to prove ownership or the renumbering of the survey numbers

The Appellant challenged these concurrent findings before the High Court under Section 100 of the CPC

1. Whether the Appellant established the identity of the suit land and proved that Khasra No. 103/6/2 was renumbered as 103/6/3 in revenue records.

2. Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference with concurrent findings of fact.

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which restricts the High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeals only to cases involving a "substantial question of law"

The principle that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or based on "no evidence"

Precedents including State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019) and Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth Ors. (2026) were cited to affirm that erroneous findings of fact do not justify interference in a second appeal in the absence of a clear error of law

The Court observed that the Appellant's primary evidence (Ex. P-1) related to Khasra No. 103/6/2, whereas the suit was filed for Khasra No. 103/6/3

The Appellant failed to produce any mutation registers, khasra panchshala, or official revenue records to demonstrate that the survey number was renumbered or that the two plots were identical

Furthermore, the Kisan Book (Ex. P-2) showed an unexplained manual alteration from 103/6/2 to 103/6/3

The Court held that since the burden of proof lay on the Plaintiff to establish title and identity of the property, the absence of cogent documentary evidence was fatal to the case

Since the lower courts reached their conclusions based on the evidence (or lack thereof), the findings were not deemed "perverse"

The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact—specifically the Plaintiff's failure to prove title and the identity of the suit land—are binding in a second appeal

The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were upheld