s { IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No. Of2005 ffljR' Bfil ^Sgi'^-ie^ ^S?' APPELLANT: ^iAlNTIFF Kailash Ram S/o Madhav Ram by caste Rajwar, aged about 50 Years, R/o Village Dwarika Nagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ./- l^, Dhan Sai S/o Ganpat Ram, by caste y DEFENDANTS Rajwar. 2^Ganpat Ram S/o Hulas , by caste ^/ / ,» ^ ^'^ c^ .^' «s .<&' ^ <<^ ,y / Rajwar, aged about 50 years. ^y. Kuldeep Ram S/o Man Sai , by caste Rajwar, aged about 45 years. ^,; Baran Ram S/0 Bagholan Ram by caste Raj'war, aged 40 years. ,5: Dewan Ram ,S/o Sajan Ram, aged 35 years, by caste Rajwar. 6,/ Filodhi Ram S/o Nandeshwar ,aged 30 years by caste Raj'war. ^. Banteshwar Ram S/o Mahavir, aged 37 years, by caste Rajwar. Thakur Prasad S/o Ram Das, aged 45 years, by caste Harijan. Awadh Ram S/o Ganga Ram, aged about 40 years, by caste Harijan. 10. Lalku Ram S/o Balkhandi, aged 35 years, by caste Harijan. U. Lalan Ram S/o Sukhudas , aged about 36 years, by caste Harijan. All resident of Village Dwarika Nagar, Thana Jai Nagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (CG). ^12. State of Chhattisgarh, through C.oailector Sursuia (CGl. MEMORANDUM OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE GODE OF CIVIL PROGEDURE 1908 ^ iCI) versus nts Kailash Ram Dhan Sai and others Present: Shri Shrawan Agrawal, counsei forthe appeilant. Shri Sushll Dubey, Government Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondent No.12. Second Appeal under Section 100 ofthe Code of Civi! Procedure (Passed on 22nd January, 2010) The second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff of Civii Suit No.292-A/2004, whose suit for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed by the trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 28-2-2005, however, on first appeal preferred by the defendants/respondents No.1 to 11 herein, the learned first appellate Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 7-9-2005, 'nas set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and consequently the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. It was the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court that he 'was the owner and title ho'der of a land bearing area 1 .91 RA spread on 1 O different khasra numbers/plots mentloned in Scheduled A with the ^piaint, however, the defendants/respondents No.1 to 11 :,«S!^' -2-- interfering in his possession, therefore, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for declaration of title. 3. The defendants/respondents No.1 to 11 resisted the suit by jointly submitting that the suit iand is government land and the plaintiff had obtained possession thereof by illegal means by getting prepared a forged lease/Pstfs. According to these defendants, the plaintiff was in possession of any document of title and also that since the laintiff was not in poss< maintainable because the issesslon. of the suit land, the suit was not plaintiff had failed to seek relief o? 4. The trial Court decreed the suit, which was set aside by the first appellate Court. 5. 1 have heard learned counsel for the appellant on admission and perused the records of the Courts beiow. From the records, it is born out that apart from Ex.P-1, which is a copy of the record of right in form B1 issued by the Halka Patwari on 26-6-1995 and Ex.P-2, which is a spot map signed by the same Patwari. The plaintiff did not file any other document in proof of his tit!e and ownership to the suit property. He did not flle any revenue record prior to this date, i.e., 26-6-1995, tracing his title from his fore-fathers sor did he file any order of grant of lease or a copy of the lease Itself to demonstrate that the plaintiff was the Sitle holder. Evidence to th< effect that the suit iand is abutting/adjQining the Dam is available on ie defendants that the suit !and is the lovernment rscord. It is the stan L- h« •S^s-" ,^^ ~a ^ ,:-y -^ ^ ~9S3^\.-^ '^l^ s- 7. The learned first appellate Court, whlle deaiing with the appeal, discussed the documentary as well as oral evidence available on record and recorded a pure finding of fact that the plaintiff was not able to demonstrate and prove his title over the sust land. It was specific-ally observed by the first appeltate Court that the documents Ex.P-1 an' Ex.P-2 were not proved in Pat'/i/ari, who issued the with taw s Ex.P-1 Ex. P-2, was examined. It is settled law that even -othenwise khasra entries or svenue entries are meant only for fiscal purposes and, they are of tit!e or ownership of the person whose name is recorded therein. The first appel!ate Court also considered the admission of the ia 5 and 6 of his deposition tc pvernment !and and that he did not produce a copy of the iease/Paffa issued in his favour. !n the opinion of this Court, the plaintiff was not able to prove his case by producing documentary evidence of his tit!e. The manner of appreciatlon of evidence and the approach of the first appellate Court is not found to be suffering from any error of jurisdiction or perversity. The appeliant has not been able to demonstrate any question of !aw for determinatlon in Shis appeal. The present second appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge