ABpsilant Plaintiff COURT OF AT^ Second ADpeai Khemsingh Thakur DIsd end de.'eted 1(8) Smt.Bassntl Devi, Wd/o. late Khem Slngh Thakur'; aged about 75 yssrs, r/o. Beerpara, DJstt.Rasgarh (C.G.) Sarangarh, 1(b) Surendra SIngh Thakur, S/'o. iats Shn KSiem Singh Thskur, aged about S2 years, r/'o. in front ot' Rsst House, Sarangsrh., Dist.Rajgarh (C.G.). 1(c) Smt.Meena Devi, W/o. Shrl Gyan Singh Chauhan, aged about 58 years,,At/P.O. KudumReia, Tahsli Gharghoda, Dj'stt.Rajgarh (C.G.). 1(d) Rajendra Singh Thakur, S/o. late Shri Khem Singh Thakur, aged about 54 yrs. r/o Beerpara, Sarangarh, DJstt.Rsigsrh (C.G.). 1(e) Smt.Uma Devi, VV/o. Shri Gautam Slngh, D/o. late Shri Khem SIngh Thakur, aged about 51 years, r/'o,. iV5a!sdip3, Rajgarh (C.G.) 1(f) Smt..Rukhmani Slngh, VV/o. late Shri Ram Slngh Thakur, aged sbout 41 years, 1 (g) Ashish Singh Thakur, S/o. iate Shn Ram Singh Thakur; aged bout 20 years, 1 (h) Ku.Anjali Thakur, D/o. jate Shri Ram Singh Thakur, Mlnor 1(1) Ku.Ayusni TnaRur, D/'o. late Shri Ram Singh Thskur; Minor Appsilants N. 1(1) to 1(i) are al! rssldsnts of Beerpara, Sarangarh, Dlstt.Raigarh and appellants No.1 (h) and 1(i) ars rnlnors are rspresented th.rough: thelr naturai guardlan and mofher 8.ppei!ants No.1 (f) Smt.Rukhmanl Singh. 1(j) Smt.Krlshna Singh, W/'o. Shri Sitarsm Slngh Thakur., about 50 years, R/o. Patei ColoRy Raigarh (C.G.). ^^ ResDondent -^ 1(k) Smt.Yashoda Slngh, W/o. Shri indrajeet Singh, about 45 years, At/P.O. Tundari, Tahsii Bliaiaarh, Distt.RaJpur (C.G.) 1(1) Jitendra Singh, S/o. iate Shri Khem Singh Thakur, aged sboul 43 years, r/o. Beerpara,- Sarangarh, Distt.Raigarh (C.G.). 1(m) Smt.Sunlta Slngh, Vv/o. Snrl Jagdish Singh, aged about 40 years, Occupatjon Agricuiture, At/P.O. Beerpara, Sarrangarh, Distt.Ralgarh (C.G.). Versus Kailash Singh Sidar, S/o Pancham Saura (Panchram' Sldar) aged about 50 years, Occupation, Service, R/o Ward No.2 Fujjharlyapara; Samianagar, Sarangsrh, Tahsll Sarangarh Distt.Raigsrh (C.G.) (Second Appeai under Section 100 ofthe CPC) Mr.Akhiiesh Kumar, counsei appears on behalf of Mr.Ratan Pusty, counsei for the appeijants. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) (9-12-2011) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 ofthe Code of Clvil Procedure, 1908 the appellants hsve chalienged the legajlty and propriety of the judgment & decree 28.7.2005 passed by the First Addltlonai Dlstrlct Judge, Sarangarh, In Civll Appeai ?^o.6-A/2004, sffirming the judgment & decree of djsmissal of suit dated 9.2.2004 passed by the Civi! Judge CSass-11, Sarangarh, In Civli Suit No.47-A/2002, whereby sujt for evlctlon filed on behalf of the origlnal appeilant/pialntiff on the ground of his personal need has been dismlssed. 2. Original appeiiaRt/plalntlff is owner of sult accommodation bearing Rhasra No.169/2K'w3rd No.2 sltuated at Sarangarh. The respondent wastenant apsd rent of accommodatlon was Rs.300/-. On the ground of arrears of rent and boRafide nesd sult was fiied by the origlnat appeiiant/piajntlff. By l-^^ -^ \J\^ fiilng vvrittsn statement the respondent has denied the o'A'nersh'sp and re!atsonshjp. After provlding opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Clvjl Judge Class-iE has alsmissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has falled to prove the ownership/title over the suit property. Same was chailenged before the lov^er appellate Court and the lower sppellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment & decree passed by the triai Court. 3. I have 'neard iearned counse! for the appeiiants, perused the judgment & decree impugned, judgment & decree ofthe triai Court and records ofths Courts beiow. 4. Learned counsei for the appeiisnts submlts that onginal appsiiant/defendant has fiied copy of Rhasra which shows the ownership of the origjnai appeiiaRt/piaintlff and same is sufriclent In the case of evlction. in convictlon sult the plaiRtjff is not required to prove his titie iike titie sujt. 5. In the present case, tne respQRdent has not oniy disputed the o'wnership and chailenge o'vvnershjp/titie of the origlnai appeiiaRt, but has also cjalmsd tstle and ovi?nership over the suit property. Both the parties hsve reiled upon khasra entries and documsnts issued by ths Municipal Councjl, Sarangarh. On the ground of speclllc denlal of title and claim of titls by opposlte party, heavy burden was upon the appellant to prove hls tltle by cogent evidence and in case of acquisltion of tltie by some documents, by fiiing and providlng documents, but reason best known to the orjginal appeilant/plalntjff ne has not pieaded the source of acquisjtion of tltie, even after adverse ciaim of the respondent by fi!Jng written statemsnt. 6. As per para 2 of the pteint, the originai appeilant is ovv'ner of the sult property, but he has not pieaded as to how he acqulred the ownershlp. in thsse circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the sult as weli as appeal on the ground that the original appeiiant/piaintiff has falied to prove the title over the suit property. Concurren? finding of fact of boih the Courts beiow based on cogent evidence are not liable to be disturbed wlthout any cogent ground. -< ^ ^- 7. E do not fsnd any substance or substantial question of Esv/ for the decision ofthis appeal. Consequentiy, the appeal is ilabis to be dlsmlssed and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itseif. No order as to costs. h? Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge