'!s^^ v^7^ ^'~' ! HieH COURT QP CHWATraS@ARH ^T BILASPUR Second Aopeai No. 171 of 2009 SB : Hon'bie Mr«.T.P. Sharma. J. ^ -< rji l' '^6 ResRondents PJaintiffs Defendants Aosseltants Defendants 1. Moihtab Hussain aged 45 years S/o Late Israr Hussain ft/o Katghora, &istt.Korba (C.B) 2. Mst.Kousarbi aged 35 y@ars Wife of Mohd,Nazir ft/o Purani Bas+i Kcitghora Disrt.Korba (C.B) 3. MustJsarat Begam oged 32 y^ars W/o Moh. Akabanili ft/o Pali, Tah PaJj, Distt.Korba(C.e.) 4. Aftob Hussain aged 28 Years S/o Late Israr Husain R/o ^opalpur Tah.Katghora Disn.Korba (C.©.) Versus 1. Mst.Budhwori gai aged 48 y©arsW/o Awadhram ft/o Vitto^is Mudpar Tah.Katghoro Distt.Korba (C.@.) 2. Mst. Beredibai aged 43 years D/o Naroycn ft/o Choryhathi, Toh.Katghora Disn.Korba(C.&) 3/ Bheigli bai D/o NQrcsyanR/o^^^j^ jaii Re pass bistt-.Korba (C.^.) 4, State of Chhattis9arh Through Collector Korba (C.^.) (SECOND APPEAL UNbER SECTEON 100 OF THE CO&E OpaVIL PROCEbURE, i908) Present : . • , .. ...... .,.. Mr. H.V.^harma, counsel for Ihe appettents. Mr^Sushil Out^y, ©overnment Advocate for respondent No.4/Sioite. lli^Sll^t <:. ^. ^ ^^c: JudQinent (Passed on 12th August, 2009) (^^. This appea! is dsrected against the judgm^it ond decree dated 13.1.2009 passed by th®Additional District Judge, Katghora, inCiyil Appeal No.36-A/2007, affirwing llie judgment and decpee ddted 24.10.2003 passed by -rite Ciyil Judge Cioss-IE, Katghora, in Ciyil Suit No.l6A/2001 whereby leawed Civit Judge Class-H, ICat9hora has decreed the suit for decbration and possession filed on behdf of respondent No.l. 2. The judgment and decree is challenged on the ground ^iat bolh the Courts below have not considered the fQctum of posses^on ond evsdency yaiue of unregistered document f®rcotlateral purpose for conssderation the pos^.ssion and thereby committed illegaMty. 3- Learned coun^l for the G^pellants ^bmits that sutes^ question of lcw relating to the factuw of possessbn espeddly Ihe question of adverse possession of l4ie re^oncfenl^ is invotyed in 1+ie present case. 4. Brief facts giying rise for filing ef Ihis o^eal is that Narayon (fyrther of respondent NoA) was owner of the property and re^pndent No.l Es a sole ^uccessor of deceased ^rayw^. Acc<?rkcling 1^ axse of the pfexintiff/respondent No4, she has su€<^@dedthe Itand in dlsputa and ^he was In possesslon of Itie land prlor to filingof the syit in •Ae yea^ 2001- Predeces^or of the appellants hwe forcefully toofc the poss^ssion of the housa and {cnd ond 0(50 succeeded in mutating his ndme. Respondent No.l fited the appeal against the order of mutation which^^w^ rep!y to the plaint, predecessor of the pre^it appelk^ts hcxve contested the suit ond alleged that property was ^ld (^ Ndra^ one Amol Sai in 1tie year 1960 after receiving Rs.90/-by unregisteped sale dgsed. Amot was sold the land to Heera SaS on 24,5.66 byiinr^iistered C.) ^ sa!e deed after receivjng Rs.95/-. Heera Sai was also sold 11ie tand to predecessor of the appellonts on 28.7.2001 by unregistered sale seed and predecessor was (n possession since 1881- De^c&sed Ishrar Hus^iin was in possession of the syit land. He had mutated his name, but ^ime was cancelled in appeal filed on behalf of respenctent No,l. 5. On the basis of averments mQde by ^he parties, the Coyrt below has framed the issues and after affording oin opperhjnity of heanng tD the parties, decreed th@ suit in favour of respondent No.l ^iich has been affirmed in ciyilappeat filed by the present c^pellQnts. ]' 6. I have heard learned counsel for 1+ie Gppellwits ond perused the Impug^^d judgmentand decree and records of 1+ie Courts bebw. 7. Leamed couns^l for the appellants vehem^itly argues that property in question was soid by faltier of r^spordent ?t4o4 In 1fie year 1960 to Amo! Sai ond Awo! Sai was sold the property to '^eeTO Sa'- There^fter, Heera Sai was sold tht property to Israr Hyssain by unreglstered scxte deed. Documents are Exs.t)/! to t>/3, Predecessor of the present o^petlants was in possess<pn on the basis of ynregsstered ^ile deed and those documents are admsssible in eviclence for collateral purpose for conslderation 1+ie nature of possesston- Witnes^s of the appejlants have spedfically depo^d that the persons were purchQsed the property and were in possession of the suit land since-the date @f purchase- Learned counsel further submits that no limitation has been prescribed for mutation, therefore, any detay in mut^ing the named not disentitle any person frorp claiming any snterestupon theproperty. 8. Fr'om perusal of the material addyced on hshdf of Itie parttes, it reyeals that propert^ was originaily owned by Nansyan (fcxther1 of respondent No<l) and tlll 1997 her name was recorded as owner of the property but without 9ivin9 wiy notice to respondent No.l, Israr Hus^isn Q?redecessor of the pre^ant appellants) has mytated his ncirne^ 'rfiough no ^^^^. ^j,-^.-^, limitatlon has been provided for mutatton, bat the appel!ants havc not filed any documents to show that they were m possessien of -rhe suit tand, inter alia, possession of respondent No4 is ajipported by or'al cmd documentary eyidence. Pfeculiar focts of the case i^eveal that in the year 1960, cost of land was shown as Rs.90/- (Ex.D/l). After 6 years in the year 1966 cost of property was shown as Rs.9S/- and aftsr 16 ysars cost of^ne bnd was shown as Rs-95/-. Present eippetlflBntshoy®not ftied suit or counter claim against respondent No.l. Materfol addyced on bdialf of the partles is sufficient to proye ownership wd p<issessJon by respondent NoJ. and dispossession of Israr Hussain within 12 years fn>m fltsng of the suit, 9. The Court below has arrived at a finding that Ihe respondent No.l is ow?er and entitled for pos^^ssion on the basls of oml a^ documentary evidence, but orlginal dfefendpnt or his hetrs hoy®not proved ownershlp or possesslon oyer 1+ie aiit lcmd, Judgment and deeree impugned is based on 1+<e prove fact. I do not find any syb$tantial question of law for determination of the appeal @r moteriai ir^egiji'arity or illegality. 10. Consequently, the o^peal feeing devoid of merits js tmbte to be dismsssed ar^d It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs^ B/- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge