^^ HJGHCOURTQFCHHATT ^^ ^ Single Bench: Appellants Plaintiffs Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Second Appeal No. 208/2005 1. Rajendra Prasad Patel, son of Late Asharfi Kunabi, aged about 52 years, occupation agriculturist resident of village Savitripur, Tah.Wadrafnagar, Distl. Surguja (CG) 2. Madan Sen Patel, son of Asharfl Kunabi, aged about 50 years, occupation agriculturist resident of viltage Savitripur, Tah. Wadrafnagar, Distt.Surguja (CG) 3. Ratan Sen Patel, son of Asharfi Kunabi, aged about 47 years, occupation agriculturist resident of vJIJage Savitripur, Tah. Wadrafnagar, Distt.Surguja (CG) 4. Indu alias Biraspati, daughter of Asarfi Kunabi, aged about 45 years, resident of village Gowardhanpur, Tah. Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (CG) 5. Bindu, son of Asarfi Kunabi. aged about 43 years, resident of viltage Rewati, Tah.Pratappur, Distt.Surguja (CG) 6. Suteyee alias Phool Kunwar, widow of Asarfi Kunabi, aged about 75 years, resident of wllage Gowardhanpur, Tah. Wadrafriagar, Distt. Surguja (CG) Versus Respondent s Defendants 1, Smt Pradhan Devi, daughter of Late Mukuthdari Kunabi, aged about 80 years, occupation agricutturist, resident of village Prapatpur, Gowardhanpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) 2. Smt Jamuna Devi, widow of Late Moti Kunabi, aged about 55 years, occupation agricuiturist, resident of village Savitripur, Tah. Wadrafnagar, Distt. Surguja (CG) 3. Smt Kusum Patel, daughter of Late Moti Kunabi, aged about 35 years, occupation agriculturist, residwt of yillage Savitripur, Tah. Wadrafnagar, Distt. Surguja (CG) 4. Tahsildar, Tahsil -^ <v Distt.Surguja (CG) 5 State of Chhattisgarh, through the District ColJector, Surguja.Ambikapur (CG) (Formal Partv) Second appeal under Section 100 of ttie code of Civil Procedure. 1908. Present: Shri G.S. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri Dilman Rati Minz, counsel for the appellants. Shri VX. Pandey, counsel for the respondent No,1. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 02.04.2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and ctecree dated 6.1.2005 passed in civil appeal No.92-A/2002 by the Addltional District Judge, Link Court, Ramanujganj afRrming the judgment and decree dated 11.9.2001 passed in civil suit No.45-A/2002 by the Civil Judge, Class-1, Link Court, Ramanujganj, whereby the suit for dectaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground of adverse possession was dismissed. (3) The sole ground urged by the learned Senior Advocate lor the appellants is that even jf both the Courts below have r^sorded a concurrent finding that the appellants/plaintifFs have failed to establish acquisition of title over the suit land by adverse possession, in view of the long and uninterrupted possession of the appellants/piamtiffe over the suit land, the Courts below have erred in refusing to grant permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. Reliance was placed on Dhsn Sinah v. Ganaubai AIR 1992 MadhyaPradesh 311. (4) Having considered the submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the appeilants, 1 have perused the record. Both the Courts have, on proper appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary, recorded a findjng that the appellants/plaintiffs have fajled to establish acquisition of title over the suit land by adverse ^- possession. in this view of the matter, both the Courts below were wholly justified jn not granting permanent injunction in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and against respondents/defendants. Therefore, 1 am of the considered opinion ttiat no substantial question of law arises for determination of this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. (5) In view of the above, M.C.P. No. No.1036/2006, whteh is an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC and M.C.P. No.1037/2006, which is an application under Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC stand disposed of. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Pnya