IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 26 of 2001 (Old No. 1349 of 1985) 1. Dayal Singh (since deceased) 1/1. Gajendra Singh S/o late Sri Dayal Singh 1/2. Balwant Singh S/o late Sri Dayal Singh Both resident of Village Diwai, Patti Patwalsyun, District Pauri. ...……………. Defendant / Appellants Versus 1. Murad Bux (since deceased) 1/1. Bashir Ahmad S/o late Sri Murad Bux R/o E.C. Road, Chaurasiya Chauraha, Dehradun. 2. Nasiruddin R/o Village Falda, Patti Patwalsyun, District Garhwal. ......……… Plaintiff / Respondent 3. Uttar Pradesh Government. ......………Defendant / Respondent Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Advocate holding brief of Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for the defendant / appellants. Mr. U.P.S. Negi, Advocate for the plaintiff / respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of the of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against 2 the judgment and decree dated 06.04.1985, passed by first appellate court (Civil Judge, Pauri Garhwal), in civil appeal No. 02 of 1984, whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1983, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Pauri Garhwal), in Suit No. 24 of 1980, is affirmed. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a grant was made by the State Government of land in suit bearing old No. 532 / 22 / 25, measuring area 3 Nali in favour of the defendant Dayal Singh in the year 1941. The nature of land was that of Nazul land. The defendant No. 1 transferred the land through registered sale deed in 1946 in favour of one Bharatu and Gayalu. As per plaint case, on 13.10.1961, 1 Nali 10 Mutthi land out of the aforesaid 3 Nali, was transferred to the plaintiff by Bharatu and Gayalu and the possession was given to him. The new numbers of the old plot No. 532 / 22 / 25 are 2074, 2075 and 2076. The land is situated in Village Kaljikhal. Later, on being interfered with possession by defendant Dayal Singh, proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated, but terminated in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s case is that he constructed his house in the year 1961-62 over the land in dispute and let it out to the State Bank of India, Branch Kaljikhal. Plaintiff had further 3 pleaded that in 1976, defendant got an entry made in his favour in the revenue records, and again started occupying the land in dispute. Hence, the suit. 4) The defendant / appellant and defendant No. 2 (State of U.P.) contested the suit and filed their separate written statements. The defendant No. 2 admitted that there was a grant made in favour of Dayal Singh in the year 1941-42, in respect of 3 Nali of the land. It is also not disputed that the land was transferred by defendant Dayal Singh in favour of Bharatu and Gayalu, in the year 1946. It is also not denied by defendant No. 2 that the plaintiff after getting possession of the land from Bharatu and Gayalu, raised his constructions. Proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. were also admitted which culminated in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 also admitted grant of Nazul land in his favour. However, he denied the rest of the contents of the plaint, as pleaded. 5) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court, framed as many as ten issues. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court found that plaintiff is owner of the land in suit through registered sale deed dated 13th of October 1961. It further held that there had been no compromise between the parties as pleaded by the defendant No. 1 in the amended written statement. The trial court further found that there is no vagueness in identifying 4 the land in dispute, as sufficient details are given in the map annexed with the plaint. The trial court further found that it had jurisdiction to try the suit. And the suit is within time. With the above findings, the trial court decreed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.1983, for possession, declaration and injunction. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Pauri Garhwal), in Suit No. 24 of 1980, the defendant No. 1 preferred civil appeal No. 02 of 1984. After hearing the parties, said appeal was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 06.04.1985, passed by Civil Judge, Pauri Garhwal, affirming the findings recorded by the trial court. Hence, this appeal was filed before the Allahabad High Court by the defendant No. 1, on 06.07.1985, where it was admitted on 07.03.1989, without framing substantial question of law, but mentioning that notices are being issued after admitting the appeal on grounds No. 1 to 5. The appeal is received by transfer to this Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000 (Central Act No. 29 of 2000), for its disposal. 6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Perusal of the lower court record shows that there is concurrent finding of fact as to the ownership of the plaintiff and that the defendant who took possession of the land (after its transfer to 5 plaintiff) was liable to be dispossessed. The substantial questions of law framed in memorandum of appeal relating to the fact that the appellant had acquired his rights under Kumaon and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, is without any basis, as there is no pleadings in the written statement that the appellant acquired any rights under said Act. Apart from this, nature of the land is Nazul and not agricultural in nature. As to the substantial question of law raised in memorandum of appeal that the land was not demarcated before passing the decree, it is sufficient to mention here that in the plaint not only the plot number and the area of the disputed land is mentioned, but also it has been clearly specified in the map annexed with the plaint. As to the last substantial question of law, mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, it is sufficient to mention that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below show that the evidence on the alleged compromise has been discussed and it has been held that the compromise was not entered into between the parties. As to the non- examination of Murad Bux (plaintiff No. 1) (since deceased) it is sufficient to mention here that he was sought to be examined by the defendant to prove the alleged compromise relied by him. To prove said document the defendants had given their oral evidence and also got examined the handwriting expert. The courts below have discussed the evidence and gave its finding in favour of the plaintiff. 6 7) In the above circumstances, since no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgments and decree, passed by the courts below. 8) Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt.: June 12, 2009 H.Negi