<2:i ^ l^ OF AT /' S.A. N0. S/o»Late UsatTam. Bliama, S/o. Tadola, & (C.G.) DEFEDENTS /y ^ <^/ ^"^ ^0""^'...-'y ^yy' ^'^' y' / •^ YBBSUs i] S/o. Gond,. Aged abuut 35 years, Occupation Agriculture/ R/o. Village Tadola, Tahsil & Disfct. Raigarh (C.G.) Sadliram S/o. Urikiiown^ Caste Gond, Aged aboiit- 50 years, Occupation Agricultare, R/o. Village Sagitarai, Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ^:. -s^ •w- '\^v ,^vt;1S. 3j/ Naib Tahsildar, Up Tahsil Pusaur, ^ Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Thi'ough: Distoct President., Raigarh (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE liiH:! - HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCS6ARH AT BILASPUR S.A. No. 85/2005 Appellant AAilan Prasad Versus Respondents Labhau <& others Shri Manoj Parajape, counsel for the appellant. Shri J.D.Bajpai, G.A. for the respondents /State. JUbGMENT Dhirendra Mishra J. (Passed on 31-03-2005) The appelJant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26/11/2000 passed by District Judge, Raigarh in Civii Appeal No. 22-A/2004 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the triat Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in Civil Suit No. 98-A/97 has been confirmed. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that he purchased the suit land on 18/04/69 from Jageshwar, Radha Bai and Shanti Bai through a registered sale deed and since then after getting his name mutated, he was in peaceful pos^ission till 1996 and when -a ^.»..^^»»<>iw» .,aw^^ ^ <•• -s- the defendants forcibly tried to encroach upon his lcxnd by ploughing the same by tractor, the matter was reported to the police and thereafter the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction was also filed which was allowed by the trial Court but however, the order granting temporary injunction was set aside in appeal by the lower appeliate Court, Case of the defendant/respondent before the Court below was that the property in question was the ancestral property of Jageshwar. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. Tili 1995 the property was recorded in the name of defendant NoJ but however the appellant got his name mutated without notice to the defendants in the revenue papers <xnd it was denied that the defendants illegally encroached upon the suit property. It was further submitted that the plaintiff moved an application before the Tahsjldar for restoration of possession which was dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, issues were framed by the trial Court and the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants was recorded. The trial Court dismissed the suit recording a finding that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that by registered ^ale deed dated 18/04/69 he purchased the suit property from its owner namely, Jageshwar, Radha Bai ond Shdnti Bai and therefore claimed possession and title over the.same, The trial Court also recorded a finding that the pldntiff has failed to prove that the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff on 28/06/96 and accordingly dismissed the suit with cost. — -5 •3' The appeal preferred by the plaintiff / appellant was also dismissed by the appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 26/11/2004 recording a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove 1+iat the sale deed was executed on 18/04/69 in his favour and that he was in possession from the date of purchase i.e, from 18/04/69 till 28/06/96. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the defendants are in possession of the suit property from the very beginning cxnd the plaintiff was never in possession of the same. This finding is based on the reasoning that the original sa\e deed has not been produced by the plaintiff though the factum of execution of the sale deed has been denied by the respondents/defendants. No document to show that after execution of the sale deed the land in questionwas recorded in the name of the pbintiff has been filed by the plaintiff and on the contrary the plaintiff has admitted in his deposition that he applied for mutation for the first time in the year 1996 and witnesses examined by the piaintiff are not aware of the position of the suit land and therefore their submission that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property has been disbelieved< Thus, both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of the sale deed and further that in pursucince of the said sale deed, the possession of the suit property was transferred to the plaintiff. Th& Courts below have further recorded a finding that the defendants are in possession of the suit property right from the beginning and thus, the suit has been dismissed. ^ -^- After hearing the counsel for the appellant and going through the material available on record this Court of the view that the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are based on objective analysis of the evidence and the material avallable on record and the same do not call for <xny interference by this Court in the Second Appeal inasmuch as no substantial question of law is involved for adjudication of this appeal. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed, There shall be no orders as to cost. M.C.P. No. 251/2005 and I.A. No. 452/2005 stand disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^yo L-.