https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238552 Interference in second appeal is limited to a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, and factual findings may be disturbed only if shown to be perverse or based on non-consideration of material evidence. On the record, the retained land in Dag No. 59 remained distinct from the ceiling-surplus land allotted elsewhere, and the appellant failed to establish that the disputed house stood on the allotted land. The revenue evidence did not support the claim that the suit premises formed part of the defendant's allotment, so the concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse. Interference was therefore unwarranted and the finding of unauthorized occupation was upheld. en-us Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238552 Interference in second appeal is limited to a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, and factual findings may be disturbed only if shown to be perverse or based on non-consideration of material evidence. On the record, the retained land in Dag No. 59 remained distinct from the ceiling-surplus land allotted elsewhere, and the appellant failed to establish that the disputed house stood on the allotted land. The revenue evidence did not support the claim that the suit premises formed part of the defendant's allotment, so the concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse. Interference was therefore unwarranted and the finding of unauthorized occupation was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238552