Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 CPC is strictly confined to substantial questions of law; it cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or characterized by a manifest error of law.

Judgment on Board

1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein, challenging the judgment and decree dated 22/11/2016 passed in Civil Appeal No. 15-A/2011 (Lalmuni & Others v. Gambhir Singh & Others) by the learned Additional District Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.). By the said judgment, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs/appellants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30/07/2011 passed in Civil Suit No. 8A/2011 by the Civil Judge Class-I, Kunkuri whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs had been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

3.

(a) The plaintiffs instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the lands described in Schedule “B” and “C” of the plaint. It was their case that the suit land forming part of Khasra No. 20, admeasuring 53.67 acres, was originally recorded in the names of their predecessors during the settlement of the year 1926–27, and that they are the legal heirs thereof. According to the plaintiffs, a mutual partition had taken place between the predecessors of the parties about 60 years prior, pursuant to which the parties came into possession of their respective shares and have since been in continuous possession thereof. It was further pleaded that the lands described in Schedule “B” had fallen to the share of plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and those in Schedule “C” to plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5.

(b) The defendants filed the written statement and denied the plaint averments. They contended that the suit property is joint ancestral property and that no partition, as alleged by the plaintiffs, had ever taken place. The defendants further set up a counterclaim seeking declaration of their respective shares to the extent of 1/4th each in the suit property, partition by metes and bounds, and separate possession thereof, along with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

(c) It is not in dispute that earlier revenue proceedings for partition were initiated by defendant No. 1, which were subsequently withdrawn and refiled, and in those proceedings, upon objection raised by the plaintiffs, the revenue authority directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of title, whereafter the present suit and counterclaim came to be instituted.

(d) The plaintiffs filed their reply to the counterclaim denying the claim of joint ownership and reiterating that the suit property had already been partitioned long back and that they are in exclusive possession of their respective shares.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the necessary issues for adjudication and, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiffs failed to establish their case of exclusive title and prior partition over the suit land. The Trial Court found that the evidence on record, including revenue entries, oral testimony of witnesses, and admissions made during cross-examination, indicated that the suit property was originally held by the common ancestors of the parties and continued to be jointly possessed and cultivated by them. The Trial Court further held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged partition as pleaded in the plaint. It was observed that the plaintiffs’ evidence regarding exclusive allotment of specific portions of land was not supported by any reliable documentary material. On the contrary, the evidence led by the defendants, incl