SECOND APPEAL: Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse or contrary to law.

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction with respect to land at Khasra No. 678/2, measuring 0.23 acres, in Gram Mungeli, claiming ownership and possession through a family partition.

They alleged that the defendants were illegally attempting to occupy approximately 0.05 acres of their land by constructing a wall and carrying out permanent construction work.

The defendants denied the averments, asserting that Ravindra Dutt’s grandfather, Purnanand, purchased a portion of Khasra No. 678, measuring 10,007 square feet, via a registered sale deed on 12/05/72, and had continuously possessed it, with a house constructed thereon and the remaining portion used as an open courtyard.

They further stated that the plaintiffs and co-sharers acknowledged Phuleshwari Bai’s long-standing possession of the land acquired by Purnanand.

A portion of the grandfather’s land was subsequently sold by the defendants to Defendant 2, Parthalal.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove direct possession or that the defendants were causing obstruction.

The First Appellate Court upheld this decision, leading to the present Second Appeal.

1. Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court failed to properly examine the evidence regarding the plaintiffs' ownership of the disputed land.

2. Whether the findings that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership and possession are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law, thereby raising a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC.

The court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which limits interference in a Second Appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law.

It also relied on the principle that concurrent findings of fact recorded by both lower courts should not be interfered with unless they are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, contrary to settled principles of law, or recorded dehors the pleadings or based on misreading of material documentary evidence, as reiterated in *State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal* ((2019) 8 SCC 637).

The court engaged in an analysis of the evidence independently, confirming the findings of the lower courts.

The original plaintiff (PW-2) Sukhdev claimed ownership and possession of Khasra No. 678/1 through family partition, as reflected in revenue records.

However, in cross-examination, he admitted not having current possession of the disputed land and acknowledged that Defendant No. 2 had constructed a permanent structure on it.

He further admitted that a portion of Khasra No. 678 was sold by his brothers, and the purchasers were in possession.

Conversely, defendant Ravindra Datt testified that his grandfather purchased the land in 1972 and was continuously in possession, a fact acknowledged by the plaintiff’s family through a consent letter.

The defendants provided corroborating documentary evidence, including sale deeds and revenue records, which were not contradicted.

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s own admissions and the defendants’ evidence proved that the plaintiff lacked possession, while the defendants demonstrated ownership and continuous possession.

Since both lower courts reached concurrent findings based on this evidence, and the appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law, the court determined that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law.

The concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish their ownership and possession, were upheld as being just and proper, without any illegality or infirmity.