A second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure is restricted to substantial questions of law. Appellate courts cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute factual findings unless the lower court's decision is perverse, based on no evidence, or ignores material evidence.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. F. U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.

2] This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sribhumi (hereinafter referred to as the “first appellate court”) in Title Appeal No. 16/2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed, affirming the judgment dated 10.05.2024 and decree dated 13.05.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1, Karimganj (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in Title Suit No. 187/2011, whereby the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed.

3] The respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking recovery of possession and eviction of the appellant/principal defendant along with consequential reliefs including permanent injunction. The appellant/principal defendant filed written statement and the defendant No. 2 also filed a counterclaim. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues: -

“I. Whether the suit has cause of action?

II. Whether the suit is maintainable?

III. Whether the suit is bad for defect of parties?

IV. Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession in respect of the suit premises?

V. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief(s) in the suit?”

Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties and upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court held that the respondent/plaintiff had right, interest and possession over the suit premises and was entitled to recover vacant possession thereof by evicting the appellant/principal defendant. Consequently, the counterclaim was dismissed and the suit was partly decreed. The learned trial court further held that the respondent/plaintiff was in permissive possession over the suit land and had right and interest therein. The judgment and decree of the trial court having been affirmed by the first appellate court, the instant second appeal has been preferred.

4] This Court admitted the instant appeal by formulating the following substantial question of law: -

“Whether the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court and the trial court are perverse to the extent that while arriving at the conclusion, the evidence tendered by the defendant No. 1 (appellant herein) was not considered?”

5] Mr. F. U. Barbhuiyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the counterclaim of the appellant/principal defendant was founded upon an agreement allegedly executed between the appellant/principal defendant and the husband of the respondent/plaintiff, whereby the suit land was purchased by the appellant from the husband of the respondent/plaintiff. He further submits that the respondent/plaintiff was never a permissive occupier of the suit land and that the possession certificate exhibited as Exhibit-1 was never issued by the respondent/defendant No. 2.

5.1] It is further submitted that the bilateral agreement marked as Exhibit-2, relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff to establish tenancy, is a fabricated and manufactured document and that the appellant/principal defendant never executed the said agreement. According to the learned counsel, the evidence adduced by the appellant/principal defendant has not been properly considered by the trial court and the first appellate court and, therefore, the impugned judgments suffer from perversity warranting interference by this Court.

6] Per contra, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the instant second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. According to him, the question formulated at the time of admission essentially invites reappreciation of evidence and reassessment of factual findings, which is wholly impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter