^ }/ (! L^ ^^. ^- v(^ ^ <5 S.JLNo. H~7 / 2011 Appellant : ^Saxxipat ^Defendant . S/o BiidtiraEii I^lar, 45 yrs, ^?t.-..,,..!a W ..^°"^"". 1</°V11L yonaDa1' ..•-^^^ Tah. Kondagaon, T>:^^^" Distt. Bastar-(C.G. ^y^"' ^^Respondent ^Plaintiff Versus SECOND APPEAL U/S S/Q Kalar^ 78 yrs, R/o VilL Sonabal, Tah- Exmd^^oii^ Distt. Bastar-(C.G.) ,^__ OFTHE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE \.° HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No.47 of 2011 APPELLANT: Defendant RESPONDENT: Plaintiff Sampat -Versus- Jhitku Ram Present Shri Prafulla Bharat, counsel for the appellant. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the respondent. Sinffle Bench: Hon^ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. ORAL JUDGMENT (20-6-2011) 1. Heard. 2. Both the Courts below have decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession of the land and the superstructure/house standing thereon which is part ofKhasra No.287/2, Village Sonabal, Tehsil Kondagaon, District Bastar. 3. According to the plaintiff, on an area ad measuring 0.05 acre of the said khasra number a house is situated in which the defendant was permitted to reside, however, by legal notice dated 7-8-1998 (Ex.-P/9) licence was terminated and when the defendant did not vacate the premises and hand over possession to the plaintiff, the suit was filed. 4. Both the Courts below have found that the house is constructed on Khasra No.287/2 and possession of the clefendant is thatof a licencee and since he has failed to vacate the premises after termination of the licence, a decree for delivery ofpossession is required to be passed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in view of the statement made by PW-1 Jhitku Ram to the effect that partition has not taken place and in view of the fact that identity of the house viz. a viz. its location on Khasra No.287/2 having not been established, the Courts below have erred in passing decree. 6. This Court has gone through the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties. 7. Though the defendant has denied that the house is situated on Khasra No.287/2, however, the trial Court framed specific issues in this regard and while answering the said issue No.l has recorded a finding that the house is situated on the said khasra number. This finding has been affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court. 8. The question as to on which particular khasra number the suit house is situated is a pure finding of fact which cannot be disturbed in second appeal, therefore, this does not lead to or involve a substantial question of law. 9. The other plea of the appellant is regarding admission of the plaintiff that there has been no partition with respect to the house. lO.The plaintiff has produced copies of the records of the rights and maintenance khasra wherein Khasra No.287/2 is in the name of the plaintiff and it is also mentioned therein that on 0.400 hectares the house is constructed. ll.In view of the documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is not owner of the said khasra number and the house standing thereon. 12.Apart from an isolated statement, there is no other evidence on record evidencing the fact that the plairitiff is not title holder of the subject land and the super structure. 13.In view of the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below and there being no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, the instant second appeal is dismissed. Barve pias-£••'""