As per case facts, plaintiffs claimed joint ownership of land with a boundary wall, alleging defendant's excavation threatened it. Both lower courts dismissed their suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The ... plaintiffs appealed to the High Court challenging the concurrent findings as perverse and questioned the consideration of evidence beyond pleadings. The question arose whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact when plaintiffs failed to prove the boundary wall's location or seek demarcation. Finally, the High Court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that plaintiffs failed to establish their case and there was no perversity in the concurrent findings of fact, reiterating the limited scope of interference in second appeals.