https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429068 In a second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or give rise to a substantial question of law. The plaintiff's claim to a disputed 10-feet raasta failed because the sale deed only described the eastern boundary as a raasta and did not prove that it had been carved out from the sellers' own land, and no reliable evidence established the asserted right. The High Court therefore held that the burden of proof had not been discharged and that no substantial question of law arose, so the appeal failed. en-us Fri, 28 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Oct 2022 08:50:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429068 In a second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or give rise to a substantial question of law. The plaintiff's claim to a disputed 10-feet raasta failed because the sale deed only described the eastern boundary as a raasta and did not prove that it had been carved out from the sellers' own land, and no reliable evidence established the asserted right. The High Court therefore held that the burden of proof had not been discharged and that no substantial question of law arose, so the appeal failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429068