Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC — plaintiff sought declaration of title by adverse possession, injunction and recovery of possession over 0.26 acre (part of Khasra Nos. 235, 236 and 237, Village Podi, Patwari Halka No. 7/21, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham), pleading purchase by his father under registered sale deed dated 20.08.1975 and hostile possession for 39-40 years. Trial Court dismissed both the suit and the defendants' counterclaim; the District Judge, Kabirdham in cross-appeals affirmed by common judgment dated 23/07/2024. Held: (i) jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law, and interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only where they are perverse, based on no evidence, or erroneous in law; (ii) mere long possession or cultivation without clear and cogent evidence of hostile animus does not confer title by adverse possession; (iii) whether possession is adverse is a mixed question of fact and law, and the revenue, Tahsildar and demarcation proceedings showed the dispute arose in recent years and possession was disputed, not settled; (iv) no perversity, misreading of evidence or material irregularity was demonstrated and submissions seeking reappreciation of evidence are impermissible; no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal dismissed at the admission stage, no order as to costs. Relied on State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal, (2019) 8 SCC 637 and Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth, C.A. No. 109/2010 (decided 09.04.2026).
