Second appeal limits and weak revenue entries fail to prove title against government land, so injunction was unsustainable.

Second appeal interference is confined to substantial questions of law, and no fresh re-appreciation of evidence is permitted; here, the concurrent findings were based on the record, including rejection of the local commissioner's report and the plaintiff's failure to establish the factual foundation of the suit, so no interference was warranted. The plaintiff also failed to prove title or settled possession over the disputed land, as sporadic revenue entries and oral evidence did not establish ownership against government land, while the plaintiff produced no legally recognized title documents and did not discharge the burden of proof. The injunction claim was therefore unsustainable, and the dismissal of the suit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second appeal disclosed any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings below. (ii) Whether the plaintiff proved title or settled possession in the suit property falling in Khasra No. 48/7 so as to sustain the decree of injunction against the DDA.

Issue (i): Whether the second appeal disclosed any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings below.

Analysis: The scope of interference in second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law and does not extend to a fresh re-appreciation of evidence. The findings recorded by the appellate court were based on the record, including the rejection of the local commissioner's report for non-compliance with the prescribed demarcation procedure and the failure of the plaintiff to prove the factual foundation of the suit. No glaring legal error was shown in those findings.

Conclusion: The second appeal did not raise any substantial question of law and no interference was called for.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff proved title or settled possession in the suit property falling in Khasra No. 48/7 so as to sustain the decree of injunction against the DDA.

Analysis: The plaintiff relied mainly on sporadic revenue entries and oral testimony, but did not produce legally recognized title documents. It was reiterated that revenue records do not confer title and that stray or intermittent entries are insufficient to establish ownership or superior possessory rights against government land. The evidence of the DDA witnesses supported the finding that the suit land fell in Khasra No. 48/5, which stood acquired, while the plaintiff failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof required in claims against public land. The principle of due process was satisfied because the rights of the parties had been adjudicated in a competent court.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove title or protectable possession in Khasra No. 48/7, and the injunction claim was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit by the appellate court was upheld, and the DDA was left free to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal arising from a dispute over government land, interference is unwarranted absent a substantial question of law, and mere sporadic revenue entries or settled possession without proof of title do not defeat the government's claim where the plaintiff fails to discharge the burden of proof.

---