High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless vitiated by perversity or error of law.

The plaintiff purchased non-agricultural plot Nos. 8–12 at Village Madana in 1990 via registered sale deed.

The original Defendant No. 1 purchased plot Nos. 4–7 immediately south of the plaintiff’s plots.

The approved layout plan sanctioned by the Taluka Development Officer (TDO) reserved a 20-foot-wide public road on the western side for ingress/egress.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants encroached upon approximately 10 feet of this 20-foot road by constructing a permanent wall, latrine, and bathroom.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, ordering removal of the encroachment based on a map (Exh. 63) prepared by the Talati-cum-Mantri.

This was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

The appellant (Defendant No. 1.2) challenged these concurrent findings before the High Court.

1. Whether the findings of fact regarding encroachment recorded by the lower courts were perverse or based on inadmissible evidence (specifically Exhibit 63).

2. Whether the Trial Court’s failure to specifically answer Issues 5, 7, and 8 constituted a miscarriage of justice under Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XX Rule 5 of the CPC.

3. Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact under the limited scope of Section 100 of the CPC.

Section 100 of the CPC, which limits the High Court’s jurisdiction to "substantial questions of law" rather than errors of fact.

Russi Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth [2026 SCC OnLine SC 555] and Bholaram v. Ameerchand, establishing that even erroneous findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless they are "perverse".

Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, creating a presumption that official acts (like the Talati’s measurement) are performed regularly.

Duty of Panchayats to remove obstructions under Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.

The High Court found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of encroachment through the layout plan and the map prepared by the Talati-cum-Mantri (PW-3) at Exhibit 63.

The court noted that once the official map (Exh. 63) and oral testimony of the Revenue Officer (PW-3) were on record, the onus shifted to the defendants to lead rebuttal evidence.

The defendants failed to provide contrary measurements or prove mala fides against the officer; instead, Defendant No. 2 pleaded ignorance during cross-examination.

Regarding the procedural issue of unanswered issues (5, 7, and 8), the court held the Trial Court provided sufficient justification, noting that these issues were superfluous in the absence of a counterclaim or were merely defensive/evidentiary in nature.

The court affirmed that the defendants had encroached upon 10 feet of the 20-foot-wide public road and upheld the direction for removal of the illegal construction and the permanent injunction.

No substantial question of law was found to justify interference under Section 100 of the CPC.