In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and first appellate courts cannot be interfered with unless they are proven to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Concurrent findings of fact - Scope of interference - Held, no interference warranted unless findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law - Mere re-appreciation of evidence does not constitute a 'substantial question of law'. (Paras 7, 9, 13)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land, claiming purchase via a 1968 sale deed. The defendants contended they were in long-standing possession, their predecessor had purchased the land, and the plaintiffs' sale deed was fraudulent. Both lower courts concurrently dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, finding no evidence of title or possession.

Findings of Court:
The courts below correctly held that mere execution of a sale deed without proof of possession is insufficient to confer title. The plaintiffs' delay in seeking mutation and admissions by their own witness further weakened their claim. The defendants' failure to establish adverse possession does not benefit the plaintiffs, who must independently prove their own title and possession.

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court merit interference in a second appeal, and whether the plaintiffs established their title to the suit land.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent factual findings unless they are found to be legally perverse or manifest an error in applying the law. If the petitioner fails to present a substantial question of law, the dismissal of the suit is sustained.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgment on Board

08.04.2026

1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Learned First Additional District Judge Ambikapur district- Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 212-A/2011 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge, Class- II, Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.79-A/2008 (Bharosa & Others vs. Mandul & Others). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for declaration of title over the land described in Schedule ‘A’ appended to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”) and for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants.

3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that they are the owners and in possession of the suit land situated at Village Bakela, comprising 7 plots admeasuring 2.47 acres. The plaintiffs purchased the said suit land from Nageshwar Sao by a registered sale deed dated 06.02.1968. However, due to lack of knowledge, they failed to get their names mutated in the revenue records. Plaintiff No.1, who belongs to the Kanwar community (Scheduled Tribe), upon acquiring knowledge, filed a revenue case before the Assistant Settlement Officer seeking mutation of the suit land in his favour. By order dated 19.07.2002, the competent authority directed mutation of the plaintiffs’ names in the revenue records on the basis of the said sale deed.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Thereafter, the defendants started continuously threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs had jointly purchased the suit land along with Kanwar Sai and are in joint possession and cultivation thereof. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is stated to be illegal and contrary to law. The cause of action arose from the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the continuous threats of dispossession by the defendants.

5. (a) The Defendants No.1 to 4 have filed their joint written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and have, inter alia, contended that the father of plaintiff No.1, late Bharosa, had filed an application before the Tehsildar, Lundra, alleging that the land purchased by him had been wrongly recorded in the names of the defendants and seeking restoration of the same in his name. It is contended that if the plaintiffs had in fact purchased the suit land, they ought to have taken steps to get their names mutated during the lifetime of the defendants’ father, late Siyambar, which they failed to do.

(b) It is further pleaded that the entire suit land stood recorded in the name of Siyambar during his lifetime and, after his death, was duly recorded in the names of the defendants in the revenue records. The defendants further stated that the suit land, along with other properties, was partitioned among them by order dated 24.02.1995 passed by the Tehsildar, Dhawarpur, in Mutation Case No. 3, and they have been in peaceful possession of their respective shares since then without any objection from the plaintiffs. By virtue of such continuous and hostile possession, the defendants claim to have perfected their title by adverse possession.

(c) The defendants further contend that the suit land was originally purchased by their father Siyambar from Lalo and Devanath, sons of Jangsai, and possession was delivered to him. It is also pleaded that no person by the name of “Patisunar” ever resided in Village Bakela, and therefore, any alleged sale deed executed by such person in favour of Nageshwar Sao is forged and fabricated, conferring no right or title. It is further contended that neither Nageshwar Sao nor the plaintiffs ever remained in possession of the sui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9355

In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and first appellate courts cannot be interfered with unless they are proven to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law.

Cases Referred (1)