Second appeal limits and adverse possession rules: factual findings stood, mutation could not defeat title, and hostile possession was unproved.

In second appeal, factual findings of the first appellate court cannot be reappreciated unless a genuine substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC. The High Court erred in treating documentary appreciation and ownership findings as a legal issue and in disturbing title based on registered sale deeds. Mutation and jamabandi entries do not create or extinguish title, and a person who entered possession as a lessee or permissive holder must prove hostile, continuous possession to establish adverse possession. On the facts, the respondent failed to prove such hostile possession, so ownership could not be claimed on that basis and the appellants' title was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the first appellate court's findings in second appeal by treating factual findings as substantial questions of law. (ii) Whether the respondent could claim ownership on the basis of adverse possession, mutation entries, or a plea inconsistent with the original permissive possession as lessee.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the first appellate court's findings in second appeal by treating factual findings as substantial questions of law.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is confined to substantial questions of law. Where the first appellate court has appreciated the documentary evidence and recorded findings on ownership, the High Court cannot reappreciate those findings as though sitting in first appeal unless a true substantial question of law arises. The sale deeds in favour of the appellants were registered documents and the High Court erred in disturbing the first appellate court's conclusions on an incorrect understanding of the evidence.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the appellants. The High Court was not justified in reversing the first appellate court's factual findings in second appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent could claim ownership on the basis of adverse possession, mutation entries, or a plea inconsistent with the original permissive possession as lessee.

Analysis: Mutation entries do not create or extinguish title in immovable property and jamabandi entries are not proof of title. A person who entered possession as a lessee or permissive holder must prove hostile and continuous possession to establish adverse possession, and mere long possession or mutation in revenue records is insufficient. A plea of sham transaction or adverse possession could not displace the appellants' title derived from registered sale deeds, and the respondent failed to establish the required hostile possession.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the appellants. The respondent could not establish ownership by adverse possession or mutation entries.

Final Conclusion: The impugned High Court judgment was set aside, the first appellate court's decree was restored, and the appellants' title and relief were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, findings of fact cannot be reversed unless a genuine substantial question of law arises, and neither mutation entries nor permissive possession can mature into title or adverse possession without strict proof of hostile possession.

---