Tenant's claim of ownership based on an unregistered agreement to sell does not supersede landlord's registered title.

The plaintiffs (Respondents) filed a suit for eviction, recovery of rent, and mesne profits regarding a shop in 'Surana Bhawan', Durg, claiming ownership via a 1966 partition deed.

They alleged the defendants (Appellants) were tenants at Rs. 100/month who defaulted on rent.

The original defendant, Dwarka Prasad Soni, denied the tenancy, claiming ownership through a 10.05.1972 agreement to sell for Rs. 9,051/- and seeking protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

The defendants later added a counter-claim for ownership via adverse possession.

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, dismissing the defendants' counter-claims.

Whether the defendants established ownership of the suit property through the purported Agreement to Sell dated 10.05.1972 or via adverse possession.

Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the landlord-tenant relationship and ownership involve a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC.

The Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which restricts second appeals to "substantial questions of law" and prohibits interference with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.

It relied on State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019) to define the limits of judicial interference in second appeals.

Regarding property law, the Court applied Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act concerning part performance and Section 116 of the Evidence Act regarding tenant estoppel.

It also noted the principle that permissive possession does not ripen into adverse possession without a clear hostile assertion of title.

The Court found that both lower courts correctly identified the plaintiffs as lawful owners based on the 1966 registered partition deed and tax records.

It critiqued the defendants' reliance on the 1972 Agreement to Sell (Ex. D/12), noting that the handwriting expert's opinion was flawed as it compared signatures against a document (Ex. D/48) whose original was never produced.

The Court reasoned that an agreement to sell does not of itself transfer title.

Furthermore, the defendants’ plea of adverse possession was rejected because their initial entry was under a purported permissive agreement, and they failed to prove a hostile takeover of title.

The Court concluded that the appellants were merely attempting to re-litigate facts, which does not constitute a "substantial question of law" required to trigger jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.

It held that the plaintiffs are the rightful owners and the defendants are tenants liable for eviction and payment of arrears/mesne profits.

The Court directed the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the shop to the plaintiffs within three months.