In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish settled and lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit; a registered sale deed, without proof of possession, is insufficient. Where discrepancies exist in survey number, extent or boundaries of the sale deed, and the vendor does not support the vendee’s case, the Courts are justified in excluding such document from consideration.

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S.100 — Second Appeal — Concurrent findings of fact — Scope of interference

Held, where the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to establish lawful possession over the suit schedule property, such concurrent findings do not warrant interference in second appeal in the absence of any substantial question of law.
(Paras 9–11, 14)

---

Specific Relief — Permanent injunction — Proof of possession — Registered sale deed — Effect

Held, mere production of a registered sale deed does not, by itself, entitle the plaintiff to a decree of permanent injunction, unless settled and lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit is established by acceptable evidence.
(Paras 10–11)

---

Evidence — Sale deed — Discrepancy in survey number, extent and boundaries — Vendor not supporting vendee

Held, where the survey number, extent and boundaries mentioned in the sale deed do not tally with the property claimed, and the vendor himself does not support the contents of the sale deed and denies the boundaries, the Courts below are justified in excluding such document from consideration.
(Paras 4, 10)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S.100 — Substantial question of law — Meaning and test

Held, a question of law which is already settled or which does not arise from the pleadings and concurrent findings of fact cannot be treated as a substantial question of law; existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for entertaining a second appeal.
(Paras 11–13)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The plaintiff instituted O.S.No.38 of 2010 seeking permanent injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No.252/12, claiming purchase from the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed (Ex.A1).

2. The plaintiff pleaded possession by asserting construction of a cattle shed and use of the remaining land as thrashing floor, and alleged interference by the defendants.

3. The 2nd defendant resisted the suit contending that:

   • the suit property forms part of land covered by Patta No.1315,

   • purchased by him and his father under registered sale deeds of the year 1980,

   • and that his title and possession had already been confirmed in earlier suits and appeals.

4. The Trial Court framed issues primarily relating to possession, interference, and entitlement to injunction.

5. On appreciation of evidence:

   • the Trial Court noticed that the survey number, extent and boundaries in Ex.A1 did not tally,

   • the vendor himself (DW-2) denied the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1,

   • the plaintiff failed to produce title deed book, tax receipts or other cogent evidence of possession.

6. Holding that lawful possession was not proved, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.
   The First Appellate Court, in A.S.No.20 of 2017, re-appreciated the evidence and confirmed these findings.

7. The plaintiff approached the High Court in second appeal proposing questions relating to appreciation of evidence and exclusion of Ex.A1.

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. The High Court reiterated that Section 100 CPC restricts the jurisdiction in second appeal only to cases involving a substantial question of law.
   (Paras 11–13)

2. Relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court emphasized that:

   • a substantial question of law must be debatable,

   • must arise from the pleadings and findings, and

   • must have a material bearing on the rights of the parties.
     (Para 11)

3. The Court examined the judgments of the Courts below and found that:

   • findings regarding non-proof of possession,

   • exclusion of Ex.A1 due to discrepancies and lack of support from the vendor, and

   • absence of corroborative possession documents,
     were all findings of fact based on evidence.

4. The Court held that the grounds urged by the appellant merely sought re-appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible under Section 100 CPC.
   (Paras 11–14)

5. Since no substantial question of law arose, the second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish settled and lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit; a registered sale deed, without proof of possession, is insufficient.

2. Where discrepancies exist in survey number, extent or boundaries of the sale deed, and the vendor does not support the vendee’s case, the Courts are justified in excluding such document from consideration.

3. Concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, based on proper appreciation of evidence, cannot be interfered with in second appeal in the absence of a substantial question of law.

4. A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is not a matter of right, and cannot be entertained merely to re-appreciate evidence or reassess factual findings.