^ ^9 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No. ^ Of 2006. APPELLANT ^LAINTIFF ^>^ ,..<^!.^ RESPONDENTS ^EFENDENTS ^ri c\^^ 10 R. G. rn'P - ^Balaji Swami, Shri Dudhadhari Math, Registered Public Tmst, Raipur (C.G.), Through Shri Rajshree Mahant Ramsunder Das, Gum Shri Late Mahant Vaishnavdas, Dudhadhari Math, Raipur. VE R SU S :- t Smt. Sushila Bai, wife ofNanak Sinlia, aged about 40 years, resident ofNear Station, Village Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 2. State ofChhatttisgarh, Through Collector laipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE __S..^:'___.-__...____.__S"T^_——-.-.^ ^ ^f^"<6 ® HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SBCOWD APPBAL N0.123/2006 Shri Balaji Swami Vs. Smt. Sushila Bai aad aiiofher ORDBR Postfor 20.6.2006 19.6.2006 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge FTF HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SBCOND APPBAL N0.123/2006 Shri Balaji Swaaii Vs. Sait. Siishila Bai aad anofher Aooearaace: Shri Paakaj Agrawal, counsel for fhe AppeUant. ORDER (20.6.2006) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J (1) This is the plaintiflPs second appeal, filed iinder section 100 of the Code of CivU Procedure agamst fhe judginent aad decree dated 28.02.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No.59-A/2005 by the Distdct Judge, Raipur (C. G) arisiag ozit of judgoient aiid decree dated 07.10.2005 passed in CivU Suit No.SO-A/2005 by fhe 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur. The plaiatifflost ia both fhe courts. (2) The brieffacts are fliat fhe plamtiff/appeUant filed a siiit for declaration of tifle, vacant possession and laesne profit of Rs.500/- with futtire niesne profit @ Rs.20/" per day jfroin fhe date ofio^stitution ofthe suit till recoveiy ofpossession iateria aUa on the grounds fhat fhe suit laad beariag Khasra'No.499/42 belongs to the plaiatiff, which is a pubUc tnist aad fhe defendaat no.l encroached upon 600 sq.fit. of fhe aforesaid Khasra Nuniber in the year 1996 aad raised construction over it, (3) The defendant no. 1 denied fhe coatentions of fhe plaiattff, especiaUy fhe factuni ofencroachiaent. The tdal Court disiaissed fhe suit recoidiag a findiag fhat fhe plaintiff cozild not establish fhat fhe defendant no. 1 has encroached upon fhe said pordon of Khasra No,499/42 belongmg to fhe plaiiittff. The appeUate Court also took flie saxae view. ® -2- ^rt ^ (4) Leanied counsel for the appeUant argued that fhe findiag in rclation to factuia of eacroachnient is perverse. The contention is that tlie plaintlfF has estabUshed fhat defendaat no.l has encroached upon fhe said portion ofKhasra No.499/42. (5) I have goiie fhrozigh fhe records offhe two cozirts below. It appears fhat for estabUshiag the factani of encroachment, fhe plaintiff examined two witaesses naiaely Raghu Raoi (P.W.l) aacl Dhaaendra Sahu (P.W.2). Vague and general evidence of these two witnesses have been adduced. P,W.2 has stated fhat the factam of encroachiaent by defendaat no.l was told to hiia by one Dashru Ram Daroga. P.W. 1 has also stated fhat fhe fact of encroachment was told to him by Dhaaendra Siagh aad Dashru Ram. Except tlieir oral evidence m fhe above maaner, no dociimentary evidence to prove fhe factuxn of encroachiaent has been broiight on record by the plaintiff. In the opiaioa of fhis court, in the facts and circuisistances fhe tdal Cozirt as weU as fhe first appeUate Court has rightly recorded fhe findiag fhat fhe plamtlff could not estabUsh fhat defendaat no. 1 has encroached upon aay portion ofthe siiit laad as pleaded ia fhe plamt. (6) I do iiot find aay per^ersity in fhe conctirrent findings recorded by the two courts below. No substaiitial question of law is iavolved ia tliis appeal. This appeal has no nierits aa^d the saaie is dismissed at the niotion stage, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao