CF000002043S ^ ^^f-q jo IN TI-iE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATORE AT JAB&LPUR Q^^ Second Appeal No. 3/'C. Of 1999 (Meraorandi-uii of Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C.) APPELLAS'T'FS PLAINTIFFS l.! -Laiabodar s/o Ramesl'K'Jar.Aghariya aged about 62 years. 2. Nan Dau S/o Rameshv-'ar Aghariya, aged about 52 years* Both resident o£ Village SuKhapali, Thana Sariya.tahsil Sarangarh district Raig-ar'h (I'a'S' Versus 1. State of Madhya Pradesh, through Collector Raigarh. 2. Grara Panchayat Sukhapali through Dashrath Sahu ssrpanch Grara Panchayat sukbapali.distt Ra-tgarh (l.'ZP). m.tiORAtIDUM OF APPEAL UKDEE SECTION 100 OF C.P.C. RESPOI'OENTS UEFESGSns' /I M [1-B HiGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kymar Mishra Second Appeal No.275 of 2010 Appellants Respondents versus Lambodar and another State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) and another Present: Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Second_Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ORAL ORDER (Passed on 8th November, 2010) Learned counsel forthe appellants is heard on admission. 2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title, restoration of possession and permanent injunction. 3. The suit land is a part of Abadi land of the village. The plaintiffs filed the suit when their possession was removed by the d'efendants on the ground that they are encroachers and have been in possession of the land in an unauthorised manner. 4. Case of the defendants is that the Gram Panchayat has been allotted the said land for construction of an Anganbadi Centre, however, the plaintiffs/appellants have illegally occupied the land which has been vacated and the plaintiffs themselves have removed the encroachment. :'f'T-^%^'^ ^ 5. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title. The trial Court has observed that plea of adverse possession is not substantiated by filing any documentary evidence regarding their possession for more than 30 years. It has also been observed that on the one hand, the plaintiffs are raising plea of adverse possession, which necessarily means that the land belongs to them as they have prescribed their title, and on the other hand, they are claiming easementary right, which can only be claimed in someone else's property. 6. The Courts below have also referred to the statement of PW-1 Nandau, who is plaintiff No.2. He has stated that he has constructed the Khalihan/Kothar about 12-13 years back. 7. On perusal of the record, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below against the appellants while dismissing the suit. The findings arrived at by the Courts below are born out from the evidence available on record. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. The second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal