[2025:RJ-JP:45085]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 555/2024 Prabhu Singh S/o Ghamandi, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Kurka, Teh. Rupwas, District Bharatpur ----Appellant-Plaintiff Versus

1. Heera Singh S/o Ramjeet, R/o Kurka, Teh. Rupwas, District Bharatpur

2. Vijay Singh S/o Heera Singh, R/o Kurka, Teh. Rupwas, District Bharatpur

3. Phooldei W/o Heera Singh, R/o Kurka, Teh. Rupwas, District Bharatpur

4. Mukesh W/o Vijay Singh, R/o Kurka, Teh. Rupwas, District Bharatpur

5. Anita W/o Pushpendra, R/o Kurka, Teh. Rupwas, District Bharatpur ----Respondents-Defendants For Appellant(s) : Ms. Pooja Dixit for Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

10/11/2025

1. This is plaintiff’s Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against dismissal of his Civil Suit for Permanent Injunction vide judgment dated 07.04.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 59/2011 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Roopwas, District Bharatpur whereagainst his first appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 11.09.2024 by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bayana, Camp Roopwas, District Bharatpur.

2. It appears from the record that in respect of plot in question, plaintiff came up with the pleadings, inter alia, that he is in possession and title over the suit plot, yet in the evidence, plaintiff-PW-1 as well as witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 have categorically admitted that suit plot is in possession of the defendants, much prior to filing of the present suit and the suit has been filed to obtain the possession back.

Further no document to show the title/ownership over the suit plot was produced on behalf of plaintiffs. In that view, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction with fact findings that plaintiff has neither could establish his possession nor title over the suit plot.

3. This Court does not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments, which give rise to any substantial questions of law. The concurrent fact findings of two Courts be low are based on appreciation of evidence and pleadings of the parties.

4. The involvement of substantial question is sine qua non to entertain this second appeal and in absence of the same, second appeal is bereft of merits.

5. The scope of the High Court to grant indulgence in concurrent fact findings recorded by the two courts below, is extremely limited and confined to the existence of a substantial question of law, while exercising its power and jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. In a series of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been categorically held as an established principle of law that the High Court is not required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record or to come to its own conclusion. The High Court cannot set aside the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below, when such findings are based on appreciation of evidence. In this regard, reference may be given to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of S. Subramanian Vs. S. Ramasamy [(2019) 6 SCC 46] The relevant portions of the judgment i.e. Paragraphs 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6, are being reproduced hereunder:-

“7.4 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that as per a catena of the decisions of this Court and even as provided under Section 100 CPC, the second appeal would be maintainable only on substantial question of law. The second appeal does not lie on question of facts or of law. The existence of "a substantial question of law" is a sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. As observed and held by this Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam' , in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the first appellate court, unless it finds that the conclusions drawn by the lower court were erroneous being:

(i) Contrary to the mandatory pr