'•V/. '^ IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH At BILASPUR ,'. ! SECOND APPEAl. N0.^^ I QfcZQOZ APPEI.LANt PI-AINTIFF .y^s.^ ^ w- <3-( ^SP^' Chamah;Lal, aged about 55 years, S/o shri Bhuyah Sharma, agriGulturist and R/0 yillage Charmudiya, Tahsil Kurud, DiStrict Dhamtari, (C.G.) NON-APPLICANTS: 1 DEFENDANTS VERSUS ' • . :. \ Surit Ram @ SurtijRam S/o Rati Ram, aged about |40 years, R/0 yillage CharrnudiyayTahsil Kurud, DistnctDhamtari, (G^G.) State of CKhattisgarh, Through: The Collector, Dhamtari (C.G.) —- MEMOOFSECONOAPPEALUNDERJSEieTION FTHE CODE OF CIVI1- PROGEDU Rfc 1908 HIGH^OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar h/lishra Second ApReal No.491 of 2007 Appellant Respondents Versus Chaman Lal Surit Ram @ Surti Ram and another Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No.2. Second Appeal under Section 1 00 of the Code of Civil Procedure ORAL ORDER (Passed on 9th March, 2010) Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2. Both the Courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction to restrain defendant No.l/appellant Chaman Lal to interfere with his possession on plaint map A and B parts of the property. 3. The suit land is a piece of Abadi land, which the plaintiff Surit Ram @ Surti Ram claims to have purchased from Brijlal and recovered possession. It is stated in the plaint that when the suit hutment collapsed about 4-5 years prior to the date of filing of the suit, defendant No.1 is trying to interfere with the plaintiffs possession on the open land. 4. Denying the plaint averments, defendant No.1 stated that the plaintiff cannot acquire title on the basis of unregistered sale-deed and ^•"^"•l^. j&a, % -z.- that he is in possession of the property since last more than 70 years. It was stated that the plaintiff has not stated the details or the particulars ofthe land, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of documents Ex.P-2, which is a receipt issued by the Kurud Municipality, map Ex.P-4, Patwari Map Ex.P-5, Maintenance Khasra of the Abadi plot of the village Ex.P-6 and the inquest Ex.P-7 signed by the Sarpanch and other villagers as also on the basis of oral evidence led by the parties, the trial Court has found that the plaintiff is entitled to obtain a decree of permanent injunction against defendant No.1 on the Abadi land. 6. On defendant No.l's objection regarding non-mentioning of the khasra number or survey number, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court has found that on the basis of map, the land is identifiable. 7. Provjsions regarding Abadi sites are made under Sections 233 and 243 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth 'the Code, 1959'). The provision under Section 233 ofthe Code, 1959 says that record of unoccupied land shall be maintained, whereas Section 243 of the Code, 1959 provides that where unoccupied land for purposeof Abadi is not available, the State Government may acquire land for the extension of Abadi. It also says that if the Collector opines that the area of Abadi reserved in a village is insufficient, he may reserve such further area from the unoccupied land in the village. The effect of these provisions of the Code, 1959 would make it clear that Abadi land is in the nature of unoccupied Government landset apart by ~3- the Collector for use by the villagers to reside therein by constructing dwelling units. Thus, a plaintiff or any other person, residing in a part of the Abadi site of a village, is not expected of mentionirig the khasra number of the part where he is in occupation. The said objection of defendant No.1, thus, does not have any force. 8. The findings recorded by the Courts below regarding the possession of the plaintiff and the effort of defendant No.1 to interfere with his possession are pure findings of fact, which cannot be unsettled in this appeal in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There being no substantial question of law arising for determination in this secondappeal, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal