^i ^ ^'^/ v IN THE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal N0._r^~-6 of 2005 ^gte II APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFFS /" Chandrika Prasad Ilias Lalji, aged about 69 years, s/o. Bhagwan Charan, resident of Grain Challan, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. BUaspur (C.G.) VERSUS /, RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTSrf 'T^:y ^ ^&^' 1. Jodhu aged about 57 years, S/o. Nohar, R/o. Village Nirjam, Tah. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Jyotin Bai, aged about 58 years, w/o. Dhanukram Sahu, R/o. Village-Mohatra, Tah. Navegarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh. ^^^^steR ^jL&9t?^_ SECOND APPEAL U/S 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE %fo&|o^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.A. No. 76/2005 Appellant Chandrika Prasad @ Lalji Versus li^wsN^"^"- Respondente Jodhu and others Smt. Anju Ahuja learned^Counsel for the appellant. JUDGMENT (Passed on 10-3-2005) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 06-12-2004 passed by II AddiUonal District Judge, Mungeli in First Appeal No. 10-A/2003 by which the judgment and decree dated 03-09-2003 passed by Civil Judge Class I, Mungeli dismissjng the Cwil Suit No. 81-A/1994 filed for declaratlon of title and perpetual injunction has been confirmed. 2-. Case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that from the date of Chakbandi in the year 1959-60 he was in peaceful possession of the suit property claiming the same to be his own, continuously without any interruption and was cultivating the same since then by dividing it into three separate plots for last 34 years and as such he has perfected his title by adverse possession. Earlierto the filing of the surt, he discovered that the suit property was recorded in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 Il: .^r ^, and they are threatening him to dispossess from the suit property and as such the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction was fited by the plaintiff. 3. The defendants in their written statement denied the plaint allegations and stated that they are in possession of the suit property since 1959-60. However. in the year 1995, ttie tand was attached by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mungeli under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the plaintiff and before that they were in possession of the same. It was categorically denied that the plaintiff was ever in possessSon of the suit property. ^<. On the basis of pleadings of botti the parties, the issues were framed and tearned trial Court dismissed the suit by recording a flnding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has perfected his fitle over the suit property by adverse possession and as such he is^entltted for perpetual injunction. •» 5. The findings of both the Courts below are based on ttie pteadings and evidence adduced by both the parties. The plainWs witeiesses have stated in their evidence that the plaintiff has been jn possesslon of the suit land whereas the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants have stated that the defendants are in peaceful possession ofthe suit land and denied the possession ofthe plaintiff. ^. Relying on the fact that the land in question is recorded in the name ofthe defendants as per Ex.D-1 and documents of D-2 to D-5 which are the Khasra documents maintained by the Revenue authorities and further considering that in the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff under Sectjon 145 of the Cr.P.C., the property Sn question was seized from the custody of defendant No.2 vide Ex.D-6 it has been held by the trial Court that defendants were in possession of the suit property and the suit of the plaintiffwas dismissed. illiil! Jill!1!11!1 'i^'H •^^i IIN^^ The appiMl pr^^ appraisal^theeyidenceledl^ fincUngsasofthetrialCourt; €^. ~7. Leamed counsel |forjth^^>^lant submite ^ trial Court as also of the appellat»Court are based on ctocuR^^ evidence that hsis be^ ^ documentswereofthe|rec;ert thedefenclaritswhichsi^t^nUa^ fromtheyear1959^C).lntheaforesaidd^ oughttohave relied uppn the statements of^wftnesse®exarimr^ theplaintiffwho^havecs^pricallyestabMsh^ werlhesuitlandsjnce 1959-60. 8 . White exepcjsingi jurisdictiw undw Sec^on^^ t^ tfie <^currentflndJngsoff^reeorde^ interfered with uritess tt^e 8am& ar®perveree. But here boUt the courts below on the basis ofmaterial availa^^ conctusiohthattheappyiant^plaintiffhasNtedto^^ and unjntermpted possej^^ oveT^hfrsuit tand since 1059-60 tBlfilingof the suit and dfemissed the suit ofthe plainfiff. 3 , Aiwther ^peci^at has been overtoo^ is that the plaintiff in hfe examihatfon in chief has categorically stated in paragraph2ofhisdepo^jtionthattheproperty^ hisshareintheChaldsandipFoceecling^^ of ttie same was givenj to him by ttie Chakbandl ©fBeer. Thus It vas incumbentohtheplainti^tofitesome^^c^^ questfonwasallottedtoihjssharet^tlieChakban^ documentswas ever fll^ l^theplair^ In view of the fa^ possession though heihas lailetf^^ ^ penden^ (^ the^it, I am ofthe pp question of law invoh^ for adjudication ofthl^^^^ <3^ recorded by the both the courts below regarding possession over the suit property is a finding of fact and it does not call for any Snterference at this 10. In the result the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liabte to bedismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 11. However. there shall be no order as to costs. 12 . Consequently, M.C.P. No. 221/2005 for status-quo stands disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge