M'i__lfic_Mj-9rT_^&QUKJ. Or JVOICATyRe AT BILASPUR' &S£SNu^M£MLNQ__J_^_0_Jzw9. SlnQ"3 "tSSK- ^^l^^y Ai'rcLi-Afv i a i ue.T^nuO.nfs Jn 10 A /"^ •^f' --^ •-!• ^ .^l'M^ ......:<s%?^ ,^ •' • ;1^><! >•?'* y ^ vi" i r s'i.Aini Ti 11" TS t y ^» i. oniv rrasaa, oon or iare TshsAf<?rli Pr'a^*"?ri ita.ad ^hoiiT ^.O ^ v s'" r? f ?> ^fF* ^^ ? ^ >i c. oiTaram, ;son or i-aTe j-swaFi Prasad,aqed about 38 years. Suth >"eSidenr3 or ^;i.xr<2sru<Xi. r\^* ^. i-' ui5mcT ^.onyu ^L-C?';. Viii.: 1. Vishwanath. son or Late R<3WSij^<'?Q*" . ..inJSW^i /liCi^ri isbout 34 vecirs. rgsidsfit of Village Funaa. Tehsil Manendraaarh, Dsstrict Korea. 2. Juoannath. son of K^ 1^'t SU n <3 d'i'' about 24 vear-3. reaidsnt of v'illdo^ iUnflu. T&'nsii .are <J aj-3W3s. Q.QS.Q -^-5,^- ~{}t\G.riSn^rQ.€t(Ai"'y's. l/iSTricT ^or^a* ^. amr. .susnua. aauoriTer- or Lute RQ.HiSUi'idCir iJuiStfVSi. <2uii£d about Z<s vears, r&Side?it or Viii-aQe; Keduuo, P.5. Po.r' District oilasour (C&j 4. 5mt. Jamuna. dauahter of' i c^ ^-.^» 5- ^^ F-'^ ±^P ^^ .^4 »^^J ^---^.- ^ --^ C.-l.^ ^J I ^-^ ^-f ^-^ --^ L-GT^ KyiTiSLifi'ijui J ui^WGi. ^3^.0 UT -i'.L/ y^Gi"'s, 'r^ASio^.E"i! OT t^S.. J ^fi'JiAft l S 3 F**^ *• ^ ^^ _ ~ .}_ V i UeXQsS ^ ^ii K3T. i '^•Q^CXi . U i^mC T 5hahdol\Cy} a. omT. i-iaxfni uevi. aauanTei" or L-CAie h.Gi'li^yi'iuui"' JulSWCti, ii2Q€.d uDOUT tJ^ VCurS. rSSJCJ^fiT GT V i llu^s V €>nKuT P^uQ^xr. Q isTncT ui fi ufi iJ O 1 i G' C?' J w;dow of Shiych <>inii". aciea aoour ou years. 7. Radheshyam, son or ohivcharan Ahir. aaed ubout 34 year.s. e>. Kaanuriarn, son or ^nivcnaran /tnir. Q<^€^ u00u7 -^ij v^eirs. 5. Ra.nkailush. son of shivchuran /'ii'lir, O[QSU i.tOouT £-0 ysursi. iu. KarnsuDnaa. ^yn •^njvc^ursn ^nir. O.Q&Q UOOUT c-Ui ••>. ii.KamKesnwar. son or 5hivc.haran Ahif. aqed auuut 24 years. NO.O ro ii ui'a. re.siaer.TS OT Viiiaae Chhuro. r.5. Khadaawdiii. U i <•; i i ii ^ i iS-i/ i s/U 1 ^x C? j 12. Leeiawafi. . duuqhter ot 5hivcharan Anir. aaed about ^V VS^r^i. f&^iGSi'lii OT ViUGQC. UTrijl. f^.O. {Vl<lfi€;H£ir£X£fum . ^"?. D 3 S TnCT is.O r€.<A {^w j 13. Dukaiwati, widow of Shambhu Prasad. aaed about 40 vears, resloenl' of VVaru No.5. Manendraaarh, District Korea (C'S) 14. 5udama -Devi. widow of Pui'anial. caed 38 years. ,^. 1'i.UiTtUri jViCAiTiTa. uQ<2-£i years, Tiirouuft ner naTurai uuardian mother Sudama Oevi. 16. Kumari Seera. aasd 3 years. throu^h her nutuf<xl Qusrdluri "i* h ^ ."^ mo'mer ^yaama uevi. fio.i—TO i& are resiaenTS OT Ward No.5, Atanendraqarh, Dlst.net K.orc.Q iC^] Ij'. 5tate oi" AAadhva Fra.aesh, Tnrouan t-oiiecror. ^urouia {Ambikaourj Presentiv 5tate or Chhattlsaarh. throuah the Coliector. - Kor'ea (Baik'unthour). Csvij Sult A s-ir^t appea! ifal^ss^ a,: Rs.4yy/- i^ ^CLir"" 1~se ^t'tsxed Rs.UU/- This .ECTION 1 ip v^iijs^ at Ks.4U^/- r^S . O •^/ ID6 Or CIVIL n."( ^ •o&ina uaarieved by the iudqment and decree dated -'•" . . . - . . . •30.1..1.20G3 passed o» • fne iearnsd Additional District VfSS-ry :<'?:v;^u"-Bf^i%si'*-;~^-? ..• - ?:::l?t;5^M^^';'^^S^B^^^"^^^ ^•" • A f^fat^ t^ ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No.460 of 2009 APPELLANTS: Defendants No.lB&C RESPONDENTS: Plaintiffs Shiv Prasad & another -Versus- Vishwanath & others Present Ms. Sharmila'Singhai, counsel for the appellants. Shri A.K. Prasad, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. ORALJUDGMENT (24-6-2011) 1. This is a defendants' appeal under Section 100 ofthe CPC. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit with respect to 18.77 acres of land at village Sarastal, Tshsil Manendragarh for declaration of title and possession together with further declarat'on that any instrument written by defendants No.2-& 3 in favour of defendant No.1 be treated illegal & void as also to the effect that mutation in the name ofdefendant No.1 is illegal. 3. Undisputedly, the land belonged to one Ramsunder. The case of the plaintiffs was that they arelegal heirs of Ramsunder, who died in 1956 and they remained in possession of the suit land. Defendant No.1 was cultivating the land on Adhiya because at that time most of the plaintiffs were minor. Defendant No.1 executed one instrument/agreement (Ex.- P/1) dated 10 June, 1964 admitting his possession as an Adhiyadarand further acknowledging the title of the plaintiffs on the suit-land. It was further stated by the plaintiffs that in the month of Kartik 1973, defendant No.1 started denying and resisting the title ofthe plaintiffs and has started claiming that he has purchased the property from defendants No.2 & 3, who are kept and illegitimate son of Ramsunder, respectively. 4. According to the defendant, the land remained in his possession on and from 9-4-1955 (Ex.-D/1) when deceased Ramsunder executed a sale deed in his favour. According to him, his possession was open, hostile ^—^.,*. ^•^^ . °^. <i... ;? 9 and uninterrupted to the knowledge of all the plaintiff; has prescribed his title on the suit land. erefore, he 5. The trial Court dismissed the suit after finding that the document (Ex.-P/1) relied on by the plaintiffs is not reliable because in para-5 of the plaint, the date of the document has not been mentioned. It has also been found that defendantNo.1 is in uninterrupted possession since 1955 and the suit is barred by limitation meaning thereby that defendant No.1 has perfected his title. 6. The First Appellate Court has revered the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and has thus decreed the suit directing defendant No.l/appellants to deliver possession ofthe suit land to the plaintiffs. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the well reasoned finding recorded by the trial Court has been reversed without properly appreciating the evidence. Relying upon the judgmentof the Supreme Court in the matter of Bondar Singh and others Vs. Nihal Singh and others {(2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 161}, she would further argue that the defendants can prescribe the title even where the possession at the beginning was on the basis of unregistered sale dee.d, therefore, the Appellate Court has wrongly held that the appellants have not prescribed the title. She would further argue that Ex.-P/1 is not a credible piece of evidence to form a basis for decreeing the suit inasmuch as the plaint does not state the date of this document which creates suspicion that the document has been prepared subsequently to bring the suit within limitation. 8. From very beginning it was the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 has executed a document admitting his possession as an Adhiyadar. It has also been put-forth by the plaintiffs from inception that the order mutating the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue record was passed and his name was recorded behind.their back without issuing any notice. In the light of the said case of the defendant, when the document (Ex.-P/1) is perused together with thestatement made by attesting witness (PW-1) Sukhnandan Singh and the admission made by defendant No.1 Ishwari in -i para-10 & 11 of his cross-examination admitting his signature on Ex.-P/1, Y'A would be apparent that document (Ex.-P/1) was in-fact executed by F defendant No.1 on 10 June, 1964. Evei/if, ^3/the sake ofargument, the appellant's case that he was in possessidn'from 9-4-1955 in pursuance of unregistered sale deed (Ex.-D/1) is accepted, period of 12 years will not be completed till 10 June, 1964 when document Ex.-P/1 was executed. Thus, plea of adverse possession, considered from any angle, is not established. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that document (Ex.-P/1) is not a reliable document. 10. However, in view of Ishwari's admission to his signature on Ex.-P/1 and statement of attesting witness (PW-1) Sukhnandan, the said argument deserves to be rejected. ll.The First Appellate Court has recorded finding offact while setting aside and reversing the trial Court's finding by a reasoned judgment and after appreciation ofthe evidence available on record, which are not perverse. l2.No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. The instant second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. ='• 3rve prashant Kumar Mishra Judge