[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. [2025:RJ-JP:45085] (2 of 4) [CSA-555/2024] 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 [2025:RJ-JP:45085] (3 of 4) [CSA-555/2024] 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 provisions of the applicable law; OR (ii) Contrary to the law as pronounced by the Apex Court; OR (iii) Based on inadmissible evidence or no evidence. It is further observed by this Court in the aforesaid decision that if the first appellate court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. It is further observed that the trial court could have decided differently is not a question of law justifying interference in second appeal. 7.5. When a substantial question of law can be said to have arisen, has been dealt with and considered by this Court in Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal [(2000) 1 SCC 434]. In the aforesaid decision, this Court has specifically observed and held: "Under Section 100 CPC, after the 1976 Amendment, it is essential for the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law and it is not permissible to reverse the judgment of the first appellate court without doing so. There are two situations in which interference with findings of fact is permissible. The first one is when material or relevant evidence is not considered which, if considered, would have led to an opposite conclusion. The second situation in which interference with findings of fact is permissible is where a finding has been arrived at by the appellate court by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence which if it was omitted, an opposite conclusion was possible. In either of the above situations, a substantial question of law can arise." [2025:RJ-JP:45085] (4 of 4) [CSA-555/2024] 7.6. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and the substantial questions of law formulated/framed and answered by the High Court, reproduced hereinabove, it cannot be said that the said questions of law can be said to be substantial questions of law. All can be said to be questions of law or questions of fact and cannot be said to be substantial questions of law.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case C. Doddanarayan Reddy v. C. Jayarama Reddy [(2020) 4 SCC 659], has observed that where two courts have reached a finding, which is not based upon any misreading of material documents, nor is recorded against provisions of law and neither can it be said that any Judge acting judiciously and reasonably could not have reached such a finding, then High Court is not required to interfere with such fact findings while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. 7. As a final result, instant Civil Second Appeal being devoid of substance and merits are hereby dismissed. The judgments and decree dated 11.09.2024 & 07.04.2014 are hereby affirmed. No order as to costs. 8. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /12