IN THEHIGHT COURT OFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR S.A.No._ 4^5 2008 APPELLANT DEFENDENT D-^ Dwarika Pp^s^rd Vaishnav 'p^s®^ tlks^-' ^w "^•^ ^^' RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF S/o Seetaram Vashnav aged 67 JT^ R/o Ramhepur Tah. Lormi Dfstt. Bilaspar (C.G.) VERSUS : 1) Gopal PrasadJaiswal S/o Bisahu Ram Jaiswal age 47 R/o Ramhepur Tah. Lormi Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2) Smt. Shail Kumari W/o Arjundas Vaishnav aged 64 years R/o Ramhepur Tah. Lormi Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) SBCOND APPEAL UNDBR SECTION l66 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE RESPONDENT DEFENDENT N0.2 ^^^ ^"^l' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR APPELLANT DEFENDANT SECOND APPEAL N0. 45 OF 2008 Dwarika Das Vaishnav RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF Versus Gopal Prasad Jaiswal & Another (Second Appeal Under Section 100 ofCivii Procedure Code) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Present:- Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 9th day ofJuiy, 2010) 1. 2. 3. 4. Heard on admission. In this second appeat filed under Section 100 of the Code of CiviS Procedure, 1908 (for short "the CPC"), the appeliant has calied in question the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below allowing the plaintiffs suit for declaration and possession. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, for adjudication, was that he has purchased the suit land together with the house from the defendant No.2 by registered sale deed dated 29/12/2003 and is in possession of the property. However, the defendant appellant is creating disturbance and is threatening to dispossess him on the ground that the suit house isconstructed on a piece of Government land. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 had no right, titie or interest in the suit property and his act of threatening the plaintiff is illegal. However, since he is asserting right in the property, there is a cloud on the title of the plaintiff for which there ss a need of seeking declaration of his titie and permanent injunction against the defendant No.1. According to the defendant, the suit land belongs to him, as it was allotted to him by the Government and, therefore, he is owner in possession of the suit property. ^, w^'-^' ^a^s^' Gowri 5. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has found that the plaintiff has proved his case that he has purchased the property from the defendant No.2 and he is in occupation of the suit land/house. It was also found that in all the revenue records, name of the plaintiff has been duly mutated. It has also been found that the property earlier belong to Arjun Das and after his death,. his wife Shail Kumari, the defendant No.2, succeeded to the property. 6. Both the Courts below have' concurrently held that the defendant has not been able to establish his title over the property; therefore, the plaintiffs suit hasbeen decreed. 7. On perusal of the pleadings and the evidence available on record, it is found that the findings recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. There is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the defendant No-1/appellant to dispel the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to prove his title. The findings are in the realm of pure finding of fact, which cannot be unsettled in second appeal under the provisions of Section 100 ofthe CPC. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India and others v. S.N. Goyal has laid down the principle as to what is substantial question of law. 9. Applying the said principle to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find any substantial question of law arising in the appeal for determination. 10. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 1 (2008) 8 SCC 92