A Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is limited to substantial questions of law; the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the lower courts' findings are perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or ignore material evidence.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents u Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sana Rana, Advocate, for orespondents No. 2(i) to 2(iv)

Respondent No.1 proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated

07.08.2025 __________________________________

Romes h Verma, Judge The present Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned District HJudge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. dated 24.12.2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant/plaintiff has been ordered to be dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Civil Judge, ( Senior Division), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, dated

06.12.2007 has been affirmed.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The brief facts of the case are that the present appellant has filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction and in alternative, decree for possession in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.ision), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur . It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Khata/Khatoni No. 52/64, Khasra Nos. 76 and 77, measuring 0-3 bigha situated at Village Bamta, Pargana & Tehsil Sadar, Bilaspur, ars per the copy of jamabandi for the year 1998-99.

3. It was averred that the plaintiff has purchased the suit land from previous owner vide sale deed dated 16.11.1993 and thereafter he is in exclusive ownership and possession of the same. It is further averred that since the date of execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit land and house situated thereon and the defendants have got no right, title and interest over the suit and the house. Further it was averred that defendant No.1 in collusion with the revenue staff misrepresented the facts and got mutation No. 287 entered in her name through Assistant Collector First Grade in Khasra No. 251/221/78/1 with respect to the land measuring

0-1 bigha on 28.07.1998 and that the land measuring 0-1 bigha was wrongly and illegally provided to her in the revenue record by deducting the land from the suit land to which neither the defendant No.1 was entitled und.er any law nor the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade Sadar was empowered to do such illegal acts.

4. It was further averred that in the previous revenue records, suit land has be en mentioned in revenue record in the name of previrous owners and that the plaintiff has constructed a cemented retaining wall to cover the suit land and adjacent land of the plaintiff in the year 1995 and the plaintiff is enjoying the same peacefully, uninterruptedly and continuously. Further it was averred that defendant No.1 had executed the sale deed illegally and wrongly in favour of the defendant No.2 on 29.01.2001 pertaining to the land which she got illegally carved out in her own name in collusion with the revenue authorities over which the defendant No.1 was neither in possession nor the said land belongs to her in any manner.

5. As per the averments as made in the plaint it was stated that after the execution of the sale deed, the defendant No.2 threatened the plaintiff that he will dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land as he has purchased 0-1 bigha of the land which is in possession of the plaintiff and falls in Khasra Nos. 76 and 77 and the purchased land has been entered in Khasra No. 2.51/221.

Since the defendants No. 2 has threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land, therefore, decree for declaration was sought to the effect that the plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of the suit land