APPELLANT/: (Plaintiff) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Second Appeal No.484 of 2005 Ram Bandhu Das Vaishnava S/o Ram Kinkar Das aged about 47 years Cultivator & Resident of Village Baloda (Near Hasuwa) Tahsil Kasdol Distt. Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Versus Prahalad Das Vaishnava S/o Sitaram aged about41 years. Bhushan Das S/o Sitaram Vaishnava aged about 38 years Balram Das Vaishnava S/o Ramratan aged about 63 years Narayan Das S/o Jhadu Das Vaishnava aged about 44 years Ram Monohar Das Vaishnava S/o Govind Das aged about 67 years Vishnoo S/o Sudhwa Marar aged about 35 years Firu S/o Kartik Marar aged about 50 years. Baisakhu S/o'Sahas Marar aged about 48 years Kholu S/o Pilu Marar aged about 48 years. Dukhwa S/o Ram Marar aged about 50 years. Parmanand @ Satanand Marar S/o Raju Marar aged about 45 years. All above cultivators and resident of Village Baloda (Near Village Hasuwa) Tahsil Kasdol Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 12. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) the {Second appeal under Section 100 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure} Present: Mr. J.R. Verma, counsel forthe appellant. Mr. C.D. Sharma, counsel for respondents No.1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10. Mr. Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No.12. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J JUDGMENT (8-12-2011) I.^By this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree dated 16-8-2005 passed by the 2 Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazaar, in Civil Appeal No.46A/2001, affirming the judgment & decree dated 31-8-2001 passed by the Civil Judge Class-11, Baloda Bazaar, in Civil Suit No.91A/91, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the civil suit filed on behalf of the appellant herein for declaration of title, permanent injunction and damages against respondents No.1 to 11 herein. 2. Present second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: - "Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case, is contrary to the evidence available on record and the same has been passed ignoring/misreading the material evidence available on record and as such perverse?" 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused judgments & decrees and records of both the Courts below. 4. As per plaint allegation, the appellant herein has filed suit for declaration, injunction and mesne profit relating to suit property and damages caused by respondents No.1 to 11 herein by illicit falling oftrees standing overthe land of the plaintiff. By filing written statement, the respondents herein have admitted title and ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property and have specifically claimed that they are not committing any breach and, therefore, there is no question of grant of permanent injunction and that they have not removed the trees as such, the appellant herein is not entitled for damages. Both the parties have lead evidence. 5. On the basis of evidence, the trial Court has dismissed the suit which was challenged before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the suit property and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. 6. In the light of pleadings, especially para 12 of the written statement of the respondents herein and evidence of both the parties, virtually, there was no cause of action for prosecuting the suit. By filing written statement, the respondents herein have specifically admitted title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Para 12 of the written statement reads as follows: - (l2) q? f^ yfdc||({1J|u| f^- ^gf^ ^ i:- (^) zf? f^ cbfe<=bl 02 ^ ^rf^ ^ ^4^T ^Tt f^ ^t ^ sfecrr^ ^t t, W ^ yRl<=11^41ul ^RT ^ ^R ^ ^RT ^f 11 ^,,;^^-,,, /i"^ Soma (sr) ^? f^ yRicii^Jiui cn^t ^ cfeciT^- ^- ^pft:T TT'r W^\ W^R ^i ^tf ^^r ^f f^r t ^T ^RUT ^ f^STM ^t ^tf v3T1^9^raT ^f 11 (^r) zi? i^ yR:i<=ii^^iui ^ ^ ^ ^Rft ^fr^ ^' ^ ^ ^ ^" t ^T ^RRUT ^fa^R ^RT ^ ^I^T ^t ^t ^^ITI (^) zl? ^ ^ ^cpf ^t c|^cnt ^ f^t yi^^i^ qr ^rf^T 11 ^ f^ft SH^TC ^ ^^T ^f f^TT TFTT t ^T ^RRUT ^ ^t V3^N T71^ ^t ^t ^t T:n^TT ^ tl (^) zl? f^ CT^ ^t ^ ^TK ^PT ^it f^TPff ^T W^rT I 7. Both the parties have lead evidence in support of their pleadings. The appellant herein/plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence relating to damages. Title and possession of the appellant has not been disputed by the respondents herein/defendants. Therefore, virtually, there was no cause of action for prosecuting the suit, especially after filing of written statement. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit and the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff or the appellant has failed to file document in support of claim for title. After admission by the defendants, virtually, there was no need to prove title and possession. Both the Courts below have also held that the plaintiff has failed to prove title and the defendants have not denied the title of the plaintiff. 8. In the light of aforesaid specific admission of the defendants in their written statement and evidence, the suit was without cause of action. The suit ought to have been dismissed for want of cause of action instead of dismissing iton merits. Both the Courts below have not committed any illegality by taking the aforesaid technical view. 9. In these circumstances, the substantial question of law formulated for the decision ofthis appeal is decided as negative. 10.0n the basis of finding on the substantial question of law, l do not find any substance in the second appeal, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed with the observation that title and possession of the appellant over the suit property has not been disputed by the respondents, inter alia, they have admitted title and possession of the appellant over the suit property. Parties shall bear their own costs. 11 .Advocate fees as per schedule. 12.Decree be drawn up accordingly. T.P. Sharma Judge /