RSA 131/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2009, passed by the learn ed Civil Judge, Hailakandi in Title Appeal No. 5/200, affirming the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007, passed by the learned Munsiff No. II, Hailakandi in TS No.138/2006, the jurisdiction of this Court under section 100 of the Code of Ci vil Procedure (for short hereafter referred to as the Code) is sought to be invo ked by the instant appeal. I have heard Mr. AM Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears f or the respondent Company. The present appeal is lodged against the concurrent findings of facts of both th e Courts below. The respondent herein had instituted the aforementioned suit aga inst the appellant praying for a declaration of its right, title and interest ov er the suit land described in the schedule to the plaint and for his eviction th erefrom and delivery of khas possession thereof. A decree for permanent injuncti on to restrain him and his agents etc. from intermeddling with the suit property was also prayed for. The suit land is described as hereinbelow: - SCHEDULE All that pucca and parcil of the land measuring about 14944 of feet situated at Ph.Hailakandi, Mouza Sudarshanpur grant, Pt-III, wnd R.S. Patta No. 285 Dag No. 855/1083 on which these are two katcha houses in existence at present. Bounded b y east - brick field of plaintiff. West - Brick field. North - Brick Field. South - Brick Klen. This suit coming on for final disposal before Sri M.Chetia, AJS, Munsiff No. 2, Hailakandi in the presence of Mr. SS Dutta, LLB advocate for the plaintiff and M r. J.U. Laskar, LLB, Advocate for the defendant. The pleaded case of the respondent/Company is that it is the recorded owner of t he land comprising the Narshingpore TE Co. Ltd. including the suit land, which i s a part of its labour line. It alleged that the appellant/defendant, who is an outsider and thus not in its rolls forcibly encroached upon the suit land and tr espassed into the suit house on 21.07.2001. As inspite of the objection raised b y it, he (appellant) did not vacate the same and his conduct and action cast clo ud on its right, title and interest in respect of the suit property, the suit wa s filed. The appellant in his written statement contended that the suit land is situated under Mouza Sudarshanpur Pt. III and was ceiling surplus. This land, according to him, had been reclaimed by his father Liakat Ali and after the same was rende red ceiling surplus, was wrongly recorded in the name of one Akal Mannad and oth ers. The appellant pleaded that the said Akal Mannad by an affidavit sworn by hi m admitted that his name along with that of others had been wrongly recorded in respect of ceiling surplus land. The appellant claimed ownership of the house an d vehemently denied the allegation of trespass and illegal entry into the suit p roperty. After framing of issues, the parties adduced evidence both oral and documentary. The learned trial Court having decreed the suit, an appeal was preferred being TA No. 5/2008. The learned Lower Appellate Court on an analysis of the pleadings and the eviden ce on record came to the finding that the appellant had failed to produce any ev idence to substantiate his claim that the suit land is ceiling surplus. That he could not produce any revenue receipt therefor, was also noticed. The learned co urt below acted upon by the documents filed by the respondent/plaintiff to prove his pleaded case. It referred, inter alia to the Jamabandi, Ext. 2, the revenue paying receipt Ext. 3 (A) to 3 (N), draft chitta book Ext. 4 (1) with the relev ant entry therein in Ext. 2 to ultimately determine the ownership of the suit la nd in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The evidence of PW 5, the ASO, Lala Ci rcle was also referred to in corroboration of the documentary evidence. Accordin g to the learned Lower Appellate Court, the suit land was under special cultivat ion of tea and earmarked for other ancillary purposes and that two kachha houses , which were constructed as labour quarter standing thereon were in possession o f the appellant/respondent till 20.07.2001. The oral testimony of the witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff was referred to in support of this conclusion. A bare perusal of the judgment and order of the learned trial court reveals that the above findings are in affirmation of its deductions in the suit. The conclu sions recorded by the learned Courts below thus cannot be said to be dehors the materials on record. That these are concurrent in nature also is an ample testim ony of the consistency in the process of the appraisal of the materials on recor d. Having regard to the limited scope of interference in the exercise of this Co urt’s power under section 100 of the Code, in absence of any vitiating infirmity in law, no intervention is called for. This appeal lacks in merit and is, there fore, dismissed. No costs.