SBCOND APPBAL No. 79 OF 200S ^ APPBLLANT PLAINTIFF Ishwar Versus RESPONDBNTS DEFENDANTS Vinod and others JUDGMENT Post for L? -6-2009 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge :s y;/ I^NNN^ ^; ^>- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR APPBLLANT PLAXNTIFF RESPONDBNTS DE3FENDANTS 8ECOND APPEAL No. 79 OF 2005 Ishwar aged about 35 years, Son of Motiram Aghariya, R/o. Bmadadih, Tah. and Distt. Mahasami.md (CG) Versus 1. Vmod aged 26 years, S/o Biranchi Rawat 2. Mayadhar, aged 60 years, S/o Samaru Rawat 3. Smt. SushUa aged 65 years, W/o Mayadhar 4. Biranchi aged 45 years, S/o Karuna Rawat AU R/o viUage Bamadadih, Tahsil and Distt. Mahasamund (CG) 5. State of Chhattisgarh, fhrougti Collector Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (CG) Shri H.V. Sharma, Adv. for fhe appeUant. Ku. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L., for fhe respondent No. 5/State. SB! HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICB N.K. AGARWAL JUDGMBNT (19-6-2009) Heard on admission. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Additional Distdct Judge, Mahasamund dated 24-9-2004 in Civil Appeal No. 17A/2001, whercby fhe judgment and decree dated 27-6-2001 passed by 1st CivU Judge Class 2, Mahasamund in Civil Stdt No. 182/98 was aGSrmed and the suit offlie plaintiffhas been disinissed. P*^IW|8B8BI^! 3. Brief facts of the case are ftiat the appellant/plaintiff instituted a siiit against the respondents/defendants for possession over the suit land which is 0.04 hectare out of the land bearing Khasra No. 396 area 0.12 and 0.41 hectare out of land beanng Khasra No. 397 area 0.61 hectare situated at village Baiadadih and mesne profit on fhe groiind that appellant/plaintiff is owner of the suit land and he has been illegally dispossessed by tbe respondents/defendants. (Hereinafter parties shall be referred to as per their description before the trial Court.) 4. In reply, the defendants pleaded fhat they have not dispossessed the plaintiff and are in possession of the suit land based on sale deed dated 19-5-1983 executed by one Dhubani Bai in favour of the defendants No. 1 and 2 for a consideration of Rs. 2000/- and since then, they are in possession over the suit land. In altemative, they have also pleaded fhat said Dhubani Bai was in possession over fhe suit land suice 30-40 years and thereafter, they are in possession over the suit land since 1983 and, fherefore, they perfected their titie over fhe suit land by way of adverse possession. 5. Leamed trial Coiirt after appreciating ttie pleadings of fhe parties, evidence led oral and documentary, held that fhe plainttfffailed to prove title and possession over the suit land by leading cogent evidence ta this regard and dismissed the suit. Leamed first Appellate Coiirt whUe afiirming the findings ^s recorded by the trial Court further held fhat the plamtifffailed to prove possession over the suit land and on the other hand, the suit land was in possession of Dhubani and thereafter is in possession of fhe defendants and fhe defendants perfected title over fhe suit land by way of adverse possession and allowed fhe cross-objection filed by the defendants under Order 41 Rule 22 ofap.c. 6. The main contention of Shri H.V. Shanna, leamed counsel for fhe appellant was that the defendaats have failed to prove the fact pleaded by fhem fhat fhey are in possession of fhe suit land pursuant to purchase of fhe same vide sale deed 19-5-1983 (Ex. D-2) and the plamtifT had already established title over the suit land by producing revenue papers in this regard. He would also submit that the land owned by the appellant/plainttff' and the land said to be owned by the respondents/defendants are of different Khasra numbers and therefore, the defendants ou^it to have established the identity offhe suit land. Havir^ not done so, the smt ought to have been decreed m favoiir ofthe plaintifi'. 7. Havuig heard the contentions raised by leamed counsel for the appellant and having perused the record wifh utmost circiunspection, hi my considered opinion, the instant appeal has no merit. Although the sale deed dated 19-5-1983 (Ex. D-2) which was executed in favour of fhe defendants by Dhubani contains different Khasra number but boundary mentioned in the sale deed is the same as of the suit land and it is not in ^ dispute that ttie respondents are in possession of the suit land and fherefore, leamed Courts below have not committed any iUegality/tnfirmity m holding ttiat fhe plaintiff failed to prove title and possession over the suit land. More over, it is for the plaintiff to prove the identity of thfi suit land by placing on record vaMd demarcation report and having not done so, it cannot be said fhat the plaintiff was ever in possession over the suit land. 8. Therefore, fhe concurrent finding recorded by both ftie Courts below was essentially a finding offact, was right recorded based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion fhat no substantial question of law arises for detennination in this appeal. 9. The appeal is, fherefore, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at admissions stage. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^ -6-2009