Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100
Second Appeal – Scope – Interference with concurrent findings
High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or recorded by ignoring material evidence. Existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction.
(Paras 11–12)
Permanent Injunction – Proof of possession
In a suit for perpetual injunction, plaintiff must establish possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiff cannot succeed by pointing out weaknesses or lapses in the defendant’s case.
(Para 8)
Extent of property – Failure of proof
Where plaintiff claims injunction in respect of a larger extent but documentary evidence establishes possession only over a lesser extent, courts are justified in holding that possession over the entire claimed extent is not proved.
(Paras 8–9)
Concurrent findings of fact – Finality
Findings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence are binding and cannot be reopened in second appeal in the absence of a substantial question of law.
(Paras 9–11)
Unregistered document – Stamp Act proceedings
Where an unregistered document is impounded and deficit stamp duty is collected under the Indian Stamp Act, and no objection is raised under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the courts below are entitled to consider surrounding circumstances while appreciating evidence.
(Para 9)
Assigned land – Burden of proof
Mere assertion that land is assigned or D-Patta land is insufficient. Plaintiff must establish possession and entitlement through acceptable evidence.
(Paras 8–9)
Second Appeal – Dismissal at threshold
When no substantial question of law arises from concurrent findings based on evidence, second appeal is liable to be dismissed without costs.
(Paras 11–13)
ANALYSIS (ISSUE-WISE)
1. Nature of the case
The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming possession over Ac.0.10 cents of land, alleging ancestral title over Ac.0.06 cents and D-Patta over Ac.0.04 cents. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the dismissal was confirmed in first appeal. The plaintiff invoked Section 100 CPC by filing the present second appeal.
(Paras 1–5)
2. Core issue before the High Court
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove possession over the entire suit schedule extent, warranted interference under Section 100 CPC.
(Paras 8–11)
3. Findings on possession
The High Court noted that:
-
Plaintiff sought injunction over Ac.0.10 cents;
-
Documentary evidence (Ex.A-1 adangal) reflected possession only over Ac.0.04 cents;
-
Both courts below recorded findings that possession over the entire extent was not proved.
The settled principle that possession as on the date of suit must be proved by the plaintiff was reiterated.
(Para 8)
4. Appreciation of defence evidence
The appellate court considered the unregistered Grama Krayachiti relied upon by the defendants, noting that deficit stamp duty was collected and no objection was raised under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. These aspects were treated as part of factual appreciation.
(Para 9)
5. Limits of Section 100 CPC
The High Court emphasized that:
-
It cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the fact-finding courts;
-
Re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible;
-
Interference is justified only if findings are perverse or based on inadmissible or ignored material evidence.
No such infirmity was found.
(Paras 11–12)
6. Conclusion
As no substantial question of law arose, the second appeal was dismissed without costs, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
(Paras 12–13)
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
In a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff must independently establish possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit; failure to do so is fatal to the claim, irrespective of defects in the defendant’s case.
-
Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless they are shown to be perverse or contrary to law.
-
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 CPC can be exercised only when a substantial question of law arises; absence of such question mandates dismissal of the second appeal.
