Key Points: - The High Court is justified in setting aside findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. if those findings are contrary to the evidence on record and perverse (!) . - An unstamped and unregistered sale deed, while inadmissible to convey title, can be looked into for the collateral purpose of determining the nature of a party's possession (!) . - The plaintiffs were found to be in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land since 1931, asserting a hostile title against the defendants (!) . - The defendants' claim that they took possession of the land in 1957-58 was found to be false based on their continued litigation before revenue authorities until 1962 (!) (!) . - The plea of sub-tenancy (shikmi) raised by the defendants was rejected because it was not pleaded in the written statement and lacked supporting evidence (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the plaintiffs had established their title by adverse possession (!) (!) .

What is the scope of the High Court's power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside findings of fact?

What are the requirements for establishing a claim of title by adverse possession?

Can a document like an unstamped and unregistered sale deed be looked into for collateral purposes?