### SECOND APPEAL LACKS SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ABSENT PROOF OF IDENTITY AND ENCROACHMENT OF SUIT LAND

The original plaintiff, Vishbanath Gupta, filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendants regarding a portion (0.05 acres) of land in Khasra No. 302/19 K, alleging that the defendants were attempting illegal encroachment and construction

After his death, his legal representatives (the appellants) were substituted.

The defendants denied the allegations, asserting they were in possession of their own separate land (Khasra No. 302/05) and that the plaintiff’s suit was vague due to a lack of proper demarcation

Both the Trial Court (Civil Judge Class-II, Pandariya) and the First Appellate Court (II Additional District Judge, Kawardha) dismissed the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to establish the identity and specific location of the encroached land

1. Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the failure to identify the encroached land are perverse or based on no evidence

2. Whether a substantial question of law arises under Section 100 of the CPC justifying interference with concurrent findings of fact

The Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which restricts the High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeals to substantial questions of law

It relied on the precedent of State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019) 8 SCC 637, holding that concurrent findings of fact can only be disturbed if they are perverse or contrary to pleadings

The Court cited Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth & Ors. (2026), affirming that even erroneous findings of fact do not warrant interference unless they are vitiated by perversity

The burden of proof to establish the identity of the property and the act of encroachment lies strictly on the plaintiff

The Court observed that the plaintiffs' witnesses admitted during cross-examination that the boundaries and exact location of the disputed land were not conclusively proved

There was no cogent evidence to show that the defendants' construction fell within the plaintiffs' Khasra number as opposed to their own

The Court reasoned that the dispute was essentially a matter of factual identification and demarcation, which both lower courts had already evaluated and found lacking

Since the appellants were essentially seeking a re-appreciation of evidence rather than addressing a legal error, the High Court held that it could not substitute its own view for the concurrent findings of the lower courts

The High Court affirmed the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, dismissing the Second Appeal at the admission stage

The request for a local investigation/commissioner was rejected as the plaintiff had failed to discharge their primary burden of proof