https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183901 In second appeal, SC reiterated that interference under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law; the High Court had wrongly reappreciated evidence and acted beyond the pleadings, so its disturbance of the first appellate court's findings was impermissible. On title, the plaintiff failed to establish adverse possession or any possessory title because the plea was neither properly pleaded nor proved, while the documentary record supported the appellant's title and possession. The High Court's judgment was therefore set aside, the first appellate court's decree restored, and the appellant succeeded on title, though injunction was refused. en-us Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:10:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183901 In second appeal, SC reiterated that interference under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law; the High Court had wrongly reappreciated evidence and acted beyond the pleadings, so its disturbance of the first appellate court's findings was impermissible. On title, the plaintiff failed to establish adverse possession or any possessory title because the plea was neither properly pleaded nor proved, while the documentary record supported the appellant's title and possession. The High Court's judgment was therefore set aside, the first appellate court's decree restored, and the appellant succeeded on title, though injunction was refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183901