^ HIGHCOURTOFCHHB "ISSARH:Bll.^PUR -^ SingleBench: Hon'bteSHriCTftiRaosaHebDeshmukh.J. Second AppeaKNo; 244 of 2008 ftppellants : 1. .Kar^atyalal,^ec) ^ son of LaeShriDarasFaimfadav, - : 2. ^Bhatatlaf, aged-65 years, son pf Late SBri Darasram Yadav, 3. Lakhanlali aged 46 years, -son of LafeShri DArasram Yadav, - 4. Bodhfn Bai wife of Late Shri c" . DarasramYadav (dead) ;; No.1 to 3 are^resiclentsof village Sukulkari, tehsil Masturi, district Bitaspur<CG) ~ - -(ADDellants/Plaintiffe) .: VBrsus - .—.,- ''~ '1~ "• ;' • . ?Re8bondents ' ^1. Nageshwar, aged 40 years,-son of Shrj^ Raghunandan Sao; resident of RaGbarighat, Juna fiilaspur, tehsfl andc)istrictBilasRyr<C<3) ; 2. , Bundkunwar, , wife of h-1iraram Agfiariya (dead/cleleted) 2A. Dei.endayal, agecl 61 years, son of . late Shn Hiraram, : 2B. Laxmi Prasad, aged 68 years, son of lateShfi Hjraram^ ' : 2C. Shyamlal, aged.59 years, son oflate Shril-lirararit^ • ,No.2A to 2&-- are resjdents of Syki.ilKari, "lehsil Masturi, district Bilasptir(CG) 2D. Sfiyambai, aged 50 years, wife of Arun Kumar, and resident of village Bairati (Malhar) Tah. Masturi, Distt. ' ^^ - ^ ; Bilaspur^ 3. State of ChhatBsgarh, Uirough the , District CollectOF, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur(CG) fRespondents/defendants) Memorandum of Second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. 1908 Present: ShriSomnathVerma.counselfQrtheappellants Shri Akhi! Agrawal, PL forState. ORAI..ORDER (Passed on 09.Q7.2008) c&ntct--'a. 3~n Heard on admission. (2) The appeliants/plaintifls are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.4.2008 passed in civil appeal No.S-A/2008 bythe IX Additional District Judge (FTC) Bilaspur, whereby the judgment and decree dated 23.8.2006 passed in civil suit No.12-A/2005 by the IV"' Civil Judge,Class-ll, Bilaspurwas affirmed. <' (3) The appellants/plaintiff's suit was founded on the plea of adverse possession. It was averred that the erstwhile Ms/gfUzarSudha Ram Sao had, in the year 1950, orally permitted Baiju Ram, the grand father pfthe plaintiffs to live on the suit land after constructinghouse and Badi. Learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute that pursuant to sate deed executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.2, the name of respondent No.2 was mutated on 14.9.1992 by order Ex.D-3. It is also not disputed that the Khasra Panehsala for the year 1965 to 1983-1984 could not be proved since it was destroyed. The Coyrts below have held that there was not even an iota of evidence to show that Sudha Ram Sao had permitted Baijuram tolive on the suit land after constructing house and Badf' in lieu of remuneration. Both the Courts below have, on proper appreciation of the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the appellants/plaintiffs haye failed to prove adverse possession over the suit land. Thelower Appellate Court has in paragraph 24 6f its judgment also recorded an additional finding that the enfry regarding possession of the appellants over the suit land in theKhasra Panchsala was in contravention of the rules. Priya (5) In view of the finding of fact recprded by hoth the Courts below, 1 am of theconsidered opinion that no substantial question of law arises for determination of this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed atthestage of admission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge