Key Points: - The case holds that revenue records are not documents of title, and interpretation of a non-title document is not a question of law; the High Court’s approach on this was unsatisfactory. (!) (!) - The High Court's misdirection on whether title was involved and the proper scope of issues in a title dispute led to errors in the second appeal; the second appeal is to be reheard. (!) (!) - The suit was for establishing title and obtaining a perpetual injunction; the plaint read in full demonstrates the claim to title, not merely a relief for possession. (!) - The judgment remits the case to the High Court for fresh decision in light of these observations, with correct steps for court-fee assessment. (!) - The appellant’s objections to maintainability based on relief claimed were rejected; the plaint indicates title as the foundation of the claim. (!)

How to determine whether revenue records constitute documents of title in a suit for injunction?

What is the appropriate scope of a second appeal when the High Court’s approach to title and possession issues is flawed?

What is the correct approach to interpreting plaints and determining maintainability of suits seeking relief of injunction for title disputes?