LA'^ v ^' IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0.-^ll'^'/2004 APPELLANT PLAINTIFF in^Sft a^'Bi'r?! ©l|i£|gl@.<@tiai3; ^ .]amvanti Devi, W/o. Gopal Prasad, Aged about 47 years, Occupatioh - Cultivator, R/o. village - Kalyanpur, Tahsil-Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS /DEFENDANTS VERSUS </',1. Krishna, S/o. Kashi Jaiswal, Aged ..• .^ ^y ^^" V-''' ^'^S^ -** * .l' >\ "*.**' ..••'-»^>'''\ v ^•^s^ ^yy ^•^ about 50 years, Occupation Cultivator, R/o. village Kalyanpur, TaHsil-Surajpur, Distt.Surguja (C.G 2, State ofChhaldsgarh, Through Collector,?Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ^/ SECONDAPPEALU/S.IOOOFC.P.CJ .) XI-HC-78 3^'^IFIRra', OTflu'ls, RiMKrfy _^_<_^_ ^^-} *11*1WI Sh*lich W[ 200 3n^r4at*> (l?t'S's"<,liT) sn^T^R-ficb OTfT3n^T<t]«iiiti STaTwgfscrsn^r °bi<<tci41-f *<iH<iTffteA'<Ri«;i< ^3Tf^IT3TI^T -a ^ r^ U i deNnd Shri Ashok Kumar Shukia. Heard on admission. In Civil Sust No. 360-A/2Q( Judge, Surajpur, the appeilant'j permanent injunctlon simpScitor i|: t'ne suit iand Khasra No. 2316, Kaiyanpur, Tahsi! Surajpur. The the suit and pieaded that the plaj !and. it was pleaded that the def^s possession of the suit !and. Thf C'ass-ii, Surajpur recorded a fin^' the su.it land. !n para-27 ofthe JL|< the piaintiff had fai!ed to prove ^ Sand slnce 50 years, it was was in possesslon of the suit !( premise, a decree for permanent| against the defendant No.1 w| preferred an appea! No. 14-A/2Q Judge, Surajpur. The First App|e recorded by the lower court that the suit iand. !t also recorded a with the then Tahsiidar, Surajpur| iand which had been cance! appreciation of evidence, the conc!usion that the piaintiff was the date of suit and reversed the counsei for the appeliant. r'l- JL|d obs^n/e App|e 102 in the Court of II! Additlona! Civii ^laintiff had prayed fcr the reilef of jsn the ground of his possession over Rakba 0.39 Aare situated in vi!iage yefendant No. l/resoondent contested jntiff was not in possession of the suit f^ndant No. 1 was the title hoider and in fe iearned Il!rd Additiona! Civi! Judge, iiping that the plaintlff had no titie over igment, whlSe recording a finding that ^sat he was "n possession of the sult »d that it appears that the plaintiff tend on the date of suit and on thts |injunction in favour of the plaintiff and ^s granted. The defendant No. 1 )03 before the l!!rd Additional District 'pjeliate Court aiso affirmed the finding 1(ie plaintiff had absolute!y no tltle over ina thatthe Diaintiff had incollusion obtained a bogus patta over the suit i^d by the Co'Sector, Sarguja. On First Appeliate Court came to the rlot in possession over the suit iand on dSecree by dismissina the suit.:-- - findi nos XI-HC-78 3. 'S^ '<<1<41C1<1, tSTfltf'16, (slctl^y i^e . ;; 4 y t^ *11*1MI Sh*1ich ^ 200^ 3ll^<l law (yit3'sl<<CT) sn^T^TR-fi* traT3Ti^r<>iii<o B^iTWEif^crsn^T tii<ilii<fl-i iit«iTfftec^)'<Ri<^i< ^;3rt^T3tI^T ?• •V !t is pertinent to note th^ Prasad @ Ratiram S/o Chamrij (DW/4), and Devnarayan (DW/5) plaintiffwas never in possession c|f Shri A.K. Shukla, tearned outset stated that the suit for possession simpiiciter and quesf piaced reiiance on Rame Gowd t the defendant had examined Rati (DW/2), Basant (DW/3), Manohar in support of its pleading that the 'thesuitiand. sounse! for the .appeilant at the veny sermanent injunction was based on :ion of titte was not germane. He !a (D) bv L.Rs Vs. idu 1.0) bv L.Rs and anothd r; 4205. P. Buchi Eeddy and others Vs. AnanfJ Pradesh 188 and Ishwara Bh it Vs. Annappa Naika; AIR 1997 Kerala 165. in support of the con| trespasser has to be protected as h'aving considered the su| counsel for t'ne appeliant, ! have p| in vlew of the fact that th^ both the Courts below that ths a^ and aiso the fact that the finding that the plaintiff was not in posse^ suit is based on a proper appr^ :ention that even the possession of a against the true owner. bmissions advanced bv the learned srused the record. !re is concurrent finding recorded by pel!ant had no title over ths suit land 'ecorded by the First Appellate Court sion over the suit land on the date of siation of She evidence avaiiable on record, ! am of the consldered oj|>inion that no substantial question.of !aw is involved in the second appe^l. As a resuit, this appea! is dismissed at the stage of admission. onsequently, M.(C).P. No. 16^4/2004, for grant of interim stay, .(>-')..P. No. 147/2006 under ordi^r 39 Rute 1 & 2 of C.P.C., and !.A. Nos. 46-/2006 and 3835/2006, record a!so stand disposed of. For taking additional documents on Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^