In a second appeal, the High Court reviews only substantial questions of law, not factual determinations made by lower courts, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed without a substantial question of law.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgement dated 16th August, 2021, by which the Appellate Court in RCA SCJ 13/18 titled Mohd. Irfan Ahmad v. Sarwar Ali Ansari, has dismissed the appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated 13th August, 2018 passed by the Trial Court in Suit No.601518/2016 titled Mohd. Irfan Ahmed v. Sarvar Ali Ansari.

3. A suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction was filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff") in respect of the property bearing No.113A, Boundary Dargah, Adhchini Village, New Delhi-110017 (hereinafter "suit property"). The case of the Plaintiff was that the Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter "Defendant") had demolished the boundary wall of the suit property and had encroached upon the open space in the suit property. The Trial Court had framed the issues in the suit and had recorded the evidence in the matter. The Trial Court then came to the conclusion that the suit property for which relief is being sought by the Plaintiff is not identifiable. There is a detailed discussion in the Trial Court's judgment in this regard and as to how there is a discrepancy between the documents filed by the Plaintiff and the property for which the relief is being sought. Further, the Trial Court held that a simple suit for injunction is not maintainable in the absence of a prayer for declaration. The Trial Court further came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff has failed to establish title over the suit property. Relevant paragraphs of the Trial Court judgment read as under:

"31. In view of the above discussion and judgment, the present suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable and the plaintiff in the present case was required to amend the suit to seek declaration of ownership over the suit property, but he has failed to do the same.

32. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant has made unauthorized construction in the suit property, which allegedly belongs to the plaintiff. Defendant has denied the said allegations. The plaintiff has failed to place on record any material to prove the aforesaid allegation. In order to successfully discharge the onus of the present issue, the plaintiff is required to show that some construction is being done by the defendant in the property of the plaintiff and that the said construction is unauthorized and illegal. In the discussion made above, court has already reached the finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the yellow portion in Ex.PW1/10 belongs to the plaintiff. In view of this, coupled with the fact that there is no material on record to show that the defendant has made any unauthorized construction, no ground is made out to allow the relief of permanent injunction, sought by the plaintiff.

33. In view of the above discussion as well as in view of the fact that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title over the suit property and for the reason that the suit property is not identifiable, the present issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant."

4. This judgment was appealed before the Appellate Court. Even the Appellate Court has upheld the judgment of the Trial Court and has held that the mutation documents reflecting the names of the Plaintiff or the Defendant have not been brought on record. It held that there were various discrepancies in the case put up by the Plaintiff and it has accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

5. In the present second appeal, the