Registered sale deed execution is insufficient to confer title without proof of lawful possession.

The appellant (plaintiff) filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding 2.47 acres of land in Village Bakela

The plaintiff claimed ownership through a registered sale deed dated 06.02.1968 executed by Nageshwar Sao

However, the plaintiff failed to mutate the land in the revenue records for 33 years, only attempting to do so in 2002

The defendants (respondents) contested the suit, asserting that their father, Siyambar, originally purchased and possessed the land, and that the revenue records were partitioned among them in 1995

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the sale deed to be a sham and noting the plaintiffs' failure to prove possession

The First Appellate Court affirmed this dismissal

The appellant subsequently filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC

1. Whether the lower courts erred in law by failing to recognize the appellant’s title based on the registered sale deed (Ex. P/2) despite the absence of a counter-claim for its cancellation.

2. Whether the second appeal involves a substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and title.

The court primarily applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which restricts the scope of a second appeal to cases involving a "substantial question of law"

It relied on the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are generally binding unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence

Furthermore, the court applied the precedent established in State of Rajasthan and others v. Shiv Dayal and another (2019) 8 SCC 637, which holds that interference in a second appeal is only permissible if findings were recorded de hors the pleadings, based on misreading of evidence, or were legally untenable

The Court observed that the lower courts’ findings were based on a proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence

Specifically, the testimony of the plaintiffs' own vendor, Nageshwar Sao, revealed that he was never in possession of the suit land and had sold it within three months of his alleged acquisition without the consent of the co-owner, Siyambar

This admission materially undermined the plaintiffs' claim of a valid transfer of title.

The Court further noted that the unexplained 33-year delay in seeking mutation created a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the plaintiffs' claim

Because the plaintiffs failed to independently prove both title and lawful possession, the Court held that the validity of the sale deed was rightly questioned by the trial court

Since the challenges raised by the appellant related essentially to the re-appreciation of evidence and findings of fact, they did not satisfy the "substantial question of law" threshold required under Section 100 of the CPC

The Court answered the issues by affirming that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in a second appeal unless perversity is shown, which the appellant failed to demonstrate

The final holding maintained that mere execution of a sale deed without lawful possession and timely mutation does not automatically confer enforceable title in a suit for declaration

All reliefs were denied