^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BJLASPUR SinaieBench : Hon'bleShriDiiiD Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Second ApReal No.365 of 2004 Defendants Ptaintiffs 1. 2. 3. Sethram, aged 17 years, S/o Jivan Suresh, aged 15years,S/o Jivan Ku. Laxmi, age3 13 years, D/o Jivan Rath Bai, aged 46 years, Wd/o Jivan ; A!i by caste Chandra, resident of Village Kiriti Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa. SI.No.1 to 3 minors through natura! guardian mother Rath Baj, Wd/o Jivan Chandra, r/o Kirit, Tahsi! Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (CG) versus 1. Jawahar, aged 51 years. S/o Kheduram Chandra 2. Badri, aged 44 years, S/o Kheduram Chandra 3. Laxman, aged 34 years, S/o KheduramChandra All resident of Village Kirit, Tahsii Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa Memorandum of Second ADDea! under Section 100 ofthe C.P.C. Present : ShriAwadhTripathi.counselforfheappellants/defendants. tShri Ratnesh KumarAgrawal and Shri Rakesh Jha, counsel for the respondents/ptaintiffs. DT (Passedon1S"'of..lu!y,2007) Heard on admission. "' ^ 2. The appeiiants/defendante are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-02-2004 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir in CivilAppea] No.11-A/2002 afRrming the judgment and decreedated 12-05-2000 passed in Civil Suit No.223-A/1996 by llnd Civil Judge Class-II, Janjgir, whereby the suit for permanent injunction and recovery of possession ofthe suit land and house was decreed in favour ofthepiaintiffs. (L. 3. The respondents/plaintiffs had instituted thesuit under Articie 65 of the Limitation Act for possession of the suit property on the basis of their title. The appeliants/defendants had raised a piea of adverse possession. Both the Courts below recorded a concurrent findihg of fact that the appeiiants/defendants have miserably faiied to prove adverse possession on the suit property. 4, Shri Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has nof been able to point out any il!ega!ity or perversity jn the findingof fact recorded by both the Courts below. Consideringthatthe ffnding of fact recorded by both the Courts below is based 'pn appreciation of evidence, no substantial question Of law arises for determination in this appeal: 5. The appeal is dismissed* In the facts and cireumstances of the case, the parties shal! bear their own costs. 6. Consequentiy, !M.(G.)PiNo.964/2004. and M.(C^R.No.1021/2Q05 r^ stantl dismissed. ' . • ! ; '"~T Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh judge