Proof of testator's exclusive ownership is mandatory for conferring valid title through a Will.

The appellant (plaintiff), a minor represented by his mother, filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding land at Village Tikathi

He claimed exclusive title based on a Will dated 05.09.2006 executed by his grandfather, Kartik Das, in his favor

Following Kartik Das’s death, the Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the plaintiff's mutation objections and decided in favor of the respondents

The defendants (the testator's other legal heirs) contended that the property was ancestral, not exclusively owned by Kartik Das, and had already been distributed equally

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 20.02.2015, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the property was the self-acquired property of the testator

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

Whether the plaintiff established exclusive title over the suit property through the Will of Kartik Das

Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error of law in rejecting the application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC

Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding title and possession give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which limits the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals to substantial questions of law

The principle that a Will only operates to the extent of the testator's existing right over the property

Doctrine that revenue records are maintained for fiscal purposes and do not confer title

Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and the principle from Gobind Singh v. Union of India (2026), which prevents parties from using appellate stages to fill gaps in a fundamentally flawed case

State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019) regarding the limited circumstances under which a High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact

The Court observed that the plaintiff's claim rested entirely on the Will; however, the plaintiff failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that the testator, Kartik Das, held exclusive or self-acquired title to the land

The Court reasoned that since the testator's ownership was not established, the Will could not confer a valid title upon the appellant

The Court dismissed the reliance on revenue entries, noting they lack the legal capacity to prove ownership

Regarding the procedural challenge under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the Court found that the appellant failed to show the additional evidence was unavailable during the trial despite due diligence; thus, the lower court’s rejection was legally sound

The Court emphasized that it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view for concurrent findings of fact unless those findings are perverse or contrary to the record, which the appellant failed to demonstrate

The Court affirmed that the plaintiff failed to establish title over the suit property and was consequently not entitled to a permanent injunction

The Second Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage