-^ } BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0. 4 / & /2005 APPELLANT/DEFENDANT L- < -^? ^<^"',.is^-' ...<-",.<^^-"' ^^ .Suleman, son of Manohar, ite, Uraon, aged about 55 r.-1^ ..^' ^...•'v agriculturist, resident ofvillage Amapali, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1. Girdhari, son of Budhuram, ^- r.o^ ^ ,^"fk- :?^sv >\iS. ^ aged about 60 years, caste - Kanwar, occupation agriculturist, resident of village Amapali, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, through —the District Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) SECOND APPEALUNDER SECTION 100 OFTHE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEODURE. 1908 ^...^' XI-HC-78 ^ST ^Ni<nq, ^^1$, ^<ni<y^< ^l^dl sh^lcb ^/<* * *<v'<w<< *'r^ * ^R[ 200 3TT^T q'^7 (yii^^T) ^TI^T^T^Jcb cT^T3TR?T$h^lch ?^TW^f?cf3TT^T 3,10._20QS Shri U.R.KoshieycounseSfl: Heard on the question of ac|mission The appeilant has preferret Code ofClvll Procedure agalnsttht passed by District Judge, Raigarh| the appeai pr-eferred by the app^! dated 31.8.2004 passed by Civl! Ji| No. 20-^2003 decrseing the perrnanent injunction. has been question of law: I this appea! under section 100 of the judgment and decree dated 16.6.2005 in Cjvil Appea! No. 38-A/2004 whereby |!ant against the judgment and 'decree idge, CIass-i Dharamjaygarh in csvil suit >ult of the respondents/plaintiffs for c|onfirmed, on the foliowing substantiai Whether the learned courtt decree of deciaratlon and ii whether the flndings recorl and iiable to be set aside?" Case of the. plalntiff befor re.corded owner of the suit land hectares and he Is in possession interfering with hls possesslon an^ defendanfs iltega! act. On the ba permanent injunction restraining possession • h.as been rnade, Th categoricaiiy stated that he is th( 0.202 hectares and he is in posse.^ <=bi^?d41^ w^'^ fe^ <l^^t< ^^ri^TW^T r the a^peflant. below were justifjed in- granting the Ijuncti.on in favour of one co-owner and ^led by'the courts below'are perverse the courts be!ow Is that he is the |)earsng Khasra No. 264/5 area 0.121 |)f the sarne. However, the defendant is a report has been iodged against the ^is of aforesald pleadings a prayer for :jie defendant from InterferEng wlth the fe defendant in his written statement owner of Khasra No/264/1 "Kh area Ision of the same. HJs iand is about half XI-HC-78 3TI^T^)T^i<=h cT^TT 3TR?T ^TW '•S, y H\*iW\ ShHlch 3:5cT^TCToW, ^Tfl<111<o, f®Krtl<riy ^^.&^..y.tS./.o.^-^2oo an^TTtT^? ('ictt^sK^') ^cTTW ^f?<T ^TT^T y/ w ^i^t^^i'f <<iwiy ^* te^ ^<^i< ^3Tf^RT3T1^T it !ar kiiometer away from the suit interfered with.the possession ofi Court after recording the stateme^ts of the witnesses has decreed the suit which has been subsequentiy affl From perusal |of the pi^adings of the respective partles and evidence availabSe on record it respect to.the ownership of the over the same. Courtsj below on and the statements ofjthe witnes^ have amved at the corhciusion th| and the appelianfc'defindant is ir| The above finding is based o| availabie on record artd cn admil the owner of the suitiland and 1 The above finding isja concurr^ Caurts beiow. . .' ^ .Learned counse! for the'a|| and at no point of time the defendant the piaintlffs over the suit land. The tria! rmed bythe iower appeilate Court. in the findings recorded by both t|ie Courts beiow. The concurrent findings ofthe courts below'are based od appreciation of the evidence sj proposed by the counse! for the| thisappea!.. • !n the result the appeai ^ dismissed and the sarhe is herebl |is evident that there is no dispute wth |suit !and and possession of the piaintiff the basis of evidence avaiiable on record |es including that of the present appeiiant ^t the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land fact interfering with the his possession. \\ proper appreciation. of the evidence ^sion of the defendant that the pjaintiff Is le Is not interfering .with his possession. snt finding .of fact recorded by both the peliant couid not point out any pen/ersity material avaiiable on record after proper nd no substantiai question of law as appellant is involved for adjudication of elng devoid of substance is !iab!e to be ^dismissed, r ^/^ Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.