-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.149 of 2010 Sudershan Kumar Birla son of Shri Laxmi Niwas Birla & Others VERSUS Mahesh Kumar Chotiya son of Shri Ladu Ram Chotiya Date of Order :::: April 2nd 2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. S.C. Gupta, for the plaintiff-appellants *** By the Court : This is second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preferred by the plaintiff- appellants, whose suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 09.11.2009 and the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellants before the learned Lower Appellate Court has also been dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.02.2010. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellants and perused the judgments of the learned Courts below. The learned Lower Appellate Court after consideration of the submissions made before it and having -2- perused the material on record has categorically held interalia that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove his title over the land in dispute. The learned Lower Appellate Court has given specific reasons while deciding Issue No.2 against the plaintiff- appellants. The learned Lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to produce any witness to prove `patta' of the land in dispute in his favour. It has further been held by the learned Lower Appellate Court that so far as the `patta' is concerned the only evidence produced is by way of certificate issued by the Additional Jagir Commissioner, Exhibit A-1. However, the learned Lower Appellate Court after carefully consideration of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the said document was not proved by leading any evidence in support of the said document nor does the document the said certificate specify the basis on which the same has been issued i.e. on the basis of which record or entry the same has been issued nor has any entries from the department concerned come to prove the same. It can not be said to be a document confirming to the requirement of public document based on official record. As such the learned Lower Appellate Court has refused to rely upon the said document in favour of the plaintiff-appellants. As such the learned Court -3- below has not committed any illegality. The learned Lower Appellate Court after consideration of the evidence on record and also the `patta' in question came to the conclusion that the boundaries, as given in the `patta' do not tally with the situation on the ground as per the evidence produced by the parties. Taking an over all view after appreciating the evidence the learned Lower Appellate Court has held Issue No.2 against the plaintiff-appellants and has reversed the findings of the learned trial Court on the same. It may be stated here that so far as the learned trial Court is concerned, the learned trial Court did not go into the question of title on the basis of `patta' and though specific arguments were raised before the learned trial Court, which were not decided, as the learned trial court dismissed the suit on the other grounds. Apart from fact the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court, while recording the evidence on Issue No.2 the learned trial Court noted the fact and the contention of the defendant-respondent that the `patta' did not bear the signatures of the Jagirdar, there was no serial number on the `patta' issued, who issued the `patta' and on what authority has also not been proved. Similarly, who was the Jagirdar at the relevant time also could not be proved by the plaintiff- appellants as there was evidence to suggest that Thakur -4- Madan Singh was the Jagirdar. The witness of the plaintiffs admitted that at the relevant time the Jagirdar was Thakur Madan Singh and the person, who issued the `patta' was not Madan Singh. Thus, the `patta' was not issued by the Jagirdar. The witness could not explain as to whether or not Shri Yatendra Singh had the authority to issue the `patta' on behalf of the Jagirdar. All these issues were relevant for the purposes of deciding the Issue No.2, which were overlooked by the learned trial Court and no finding was given by the learned trial Court on the same. As such it can not be said to be a case of reversal of findings on Issue No.2. The findings given by the learned Lower Appellate Court, therefore, do not call for any interference. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the appeal having been decided merely upon the appreciation of evidence led by the parties on record and there being a finding of fact on the aforesaid issues, the same cannot be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. No substantial question of law has been raised in this second appeal. The appeal and the stay application are accordingly dismissed summarily. (Dalip Singh), J. Ashok/