A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if it involves a substantial question of law, not merely erroneous findings of fact.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The concurrent finding arrived at by the learned Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.135 of 2005 as well by Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.68 of 2014 whereunder the Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The judgment and decree is also confirmed in the first appeal are called in question in the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’).

2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant and successful defendants are the respondents. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are stated before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned AGP Ms.Shruti Dhruve appears on advance copy for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4. The brief facts leading to filing of this second appeal are as under.

4.1 It is the case of the appellant that he has purchased land bearing Revenue Survey No.43/2 admeasuring Acre 4-34 Gunthas of village Dadiya, Jamnagar vide registered sale deed dated 27.01.1973 and since then he is doing agricultural activities on the said land. Sub-survey numbers were allotted to the land of Survey No.43 whereupon it is held that land of Survey No.43/2 the claim of which has been made by the plaintiff was declared as Kharaba land and vested to the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation as per Notification of Saurashtra State dated 05.01.1951. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.135 of 2005 before the Trial Court and the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 20.10.2014. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.68 of 2014 before the learned Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 17.05.2024. Hence, the second appeal.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Meet Pansuria appearing for the appellant-plaintiff and learned AGP Ms.Shruti Dhruve appearing for the respondent State.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Meet Pansuria after referring to the question of law framed by him in para 3 of the appeal memo for admission of the second appeal submits that the learned Courts below have committed serious error in disbelieving the registered sale deed qua disputed land in favour of the plaintiff as well as the mutation entry and their evidentiary value. He would further submit that learned Trial Court erroneously reached to the conclusion that the disputed land is “Kharaba land” and in view of 1951 Notification of the Government, said “Kharaba land” is vested with the Jamnagar Mahanagarpalika. He would further submit that the same error has been transcended in the first appeal as the First Appellate Court has also believed the same. He would further submit that there is serious doubt on the 1956 document produced by the Government indicating as “kamijyasti patrak”. This document is not proved in accordance with law. He would further submit that a list of land stated in the notification of the Government 1951 does not include the disputed land which belongs to the plaintiff. Therefore, serious error has been crept in the impugned judgment and decree. Such serious error leads to substantial proprietary right relating to the properties of the plaintiff and therefore, there are substantial questions of law involved, which needs to be addressed in the second appeal.

6.1 Learned advocate Mr.Meet Pansuria also referred to various revenue entries on the record of the evidence to indicate that even to the knowledge of the State Government, the plaintiff is holding the possession of the disputed land since long and therefore in view of principle of adverse possession, the plaintiff has become the owner.

6.2 Learned advocate Mr.Pansuria would further submit that an er