RSA 33/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr R Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr PM Deka, le arned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3. For the order proposed to be passed it is considered inessential to issu e formal notice to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The appellant as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 7/05 in the Court o f the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Nalbari praying for a decree inte r alia for mandatory injunction to restrain the respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 from disposing of the land covered by Dag No. 284 and 851 under K.P. Patta No. 4 2 and N.K. Patta No. 44 of village Barkura without proper identification/ demarc ation thereof vis-à-vis the land covered by Dag No. 608, 607,614 and 876 under K.P. Patta No. 20 and N.K. Patta No.8 of the same village. The pleaded case of the appellant/ plaintiff in short is that his father had gifted away land measur ing 12 Bigha of K.P. Patta No. 20 containing Dag No. 608/607/624 to him and defe ndant No.3 and that he along with the defendant No.2 had purchased an additional plot of land measuring 1B-4K-18Ls of N.K. Patta No. 8 including the land under Dag No. 876. The appellant/plaintiff and the defendant No.2 thereafter in view o f some differences between them divided this land among themselves. According to the appellant/ plaintiff land measuring 1B-3K-4Ls covered by K.P. Patta No. 42 included in Dag No. 284 and 10 Ls covered by N.K. Patta No. 44 of Dag No. 851 we re contiguously situated to the aforementioned plot covered by Dag No. 608/607/ 614 and 876. He alleged that taking advantage of the adjacency of the lands, the respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of land under Dag No. 284 and 851. As the transaction undertaken wi thout any demarcation or survey of the two adjacent plots of land had the potent ial of depriving the appellant/ plaintiff of his absolute right, title and inter est in his land, he filed the suit praying for the relief as aforesaid. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3/ defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in their written state ment in substance contended that the respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 was the own er in possession of the land covered by K.P. Patta No. 42 and N.K. Patta No. 44 under Dag No. 284 and 851 and that her name was duly recorded in the revenue rec ords in respect thereof. While asserting their right to dispose of the land as t he owner thereof, the answering defendants pleaded that the lands covered by Dag No. 608/ 607/ 614 and 284 were not contiguously placed and in fact were separa ted by a distance of about 1 ‰ furlongs. The learned Trial Court while deciding Issue No.4 on an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, more particularly that of the Lat Mandal o f Borkura Village (DW 3) with reference to the field map (Exhibit-II) returned t he finding that the land covered by Dag Nos. 876 and 851 though contiguous, were situated at a distance of about 1 k.m. from the location of the land under Dag No. 607/608/ 614. It held further that the land covered Dag No. 284 was not a pa rt thereof. In categorical terms on a consideration of the above evidence and ot her materials on record the learned Trial Court concluded that the land covered by Dag Nos. 607/ 608/ 614 of K.P. Patta No. 20 was bounded by different and dist inct boundaries under different pattas and that the land covered by Dag No. 284 was not contiguous thereto. The suit was dismissed, amongst others, on the basis of this finding. The learned lower Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and order has affirmed the determination made by the learned Trial Court. Whereas Mr Goswami has urged emphatically that the finding of the learne d Trial Court with regard to the mutual orientation of the lands is not borne ou t by the evidence on record, Mr Deka has contended that as the same is a finding of fact on an appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the par ties, in the exercise of this Court’s power under Section 100 CPC, no interferen ce therewith is called for. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials available before this Court, I am inclined to sustain the plea taken on behalf of the respondents/ defendants. A bare reading of the judgment a nd order of the learned Trial Court brings to the fore its finding with regard t o the location of the two plots of land. Though the judgment and order of the lo wer Appellate Court is cryptic, in view of the overwhelming materials on the bas is of which the learned Trial Court recorded this finding, there is no reason to take a different view. Interference with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Appellate Court on the ground that it is neither explicit nor detailed, in the opinion of this Court, would only unnecessarily linger the dispute. In t he face of the evidence as alluded hereinabove with reference to which the learn ed Trial Court has determined the Issue No.4, no interference with the said find ing is warranted. In the above facts and circumstances, the appeal lacks in merit and is d ismissed. No costs.