^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR S.A. No. 514/2005 Single Bench: Hon'bte Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellants 1. Nakul Vishwas S/o Nilkanth Vishwas, 2. Naresh Vishwas S/o Nakul Vishwas, 3. Naveen Vishwas S/o Nakul Viswas 4. Narad Vishwas S/o Nakul Vishwas Al! are R/o village P.V. -30, Tahsil- Pakhanjur.Distt.-Kanker (CG) Versys 1. Smt. Golapi Vishwas W/o Late Anath Vishwas R/o. P.V.- 30, Yogendra Nagar, Tahsil-Pakhanjur, Distt.- Kanker (CG) 2.. State of Chhattisgarh through the Coilector, Distt.- Kanker (CG) Present: Shri R.K.Tiwari, with Shri F.S. Khare, iearned counsei for the appellants. (Passed on 16"' Mareh, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Heard on application dated 12/3/2007 filed under Order-41 Rule-27 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for taking additional documents Annexure A-1 & 2 on record. 2. Document Annexure A-1 is already on record. So far as Document Annexure A-2 is concerned, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for not filing this document, the authenticity of which appears to be extremely doubtful, either in the iower Court or in the 1s Appeiiate Court, l do not a'eem if fit to aliow this application. Accordingly, application dated 12/3/2007 is dismissed. 3. Heard on admission. The appellants/defendants have preferred this S,A. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2005 passed by the 1 Additional District Judge, Kanker in civi! appeai No. 4A/2005 w'hereby the decree for possession and permanent injunction passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in clvi suit No. 10A/2002 by the civii Judge Class-l, Bhanupratappur vide judgment and decree dated 30.12.2004, was affirmed. ?-ilya 4. Both the Courts have recorded a finding that the respondenVpiaintiff was in possession of the suit lands in pursuance to a 'patta' granted in favour of Anath Vishwas, husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not required to claim the relief for declaration of title slnce there was no cloud over her titls and the defendants faiied to prove having any sembtence of title over the suit lands and were thus trespassers. Para 8 of the judgment of the 1 Appellate Court shows that it had taken into consideration documents Ex.P-2, P-3 and P-4 which proved that Anath Vishwas had been granted 'paffa' over the suit land and had also considered the fact that possession of Anath Vishwas over the suit land in the year 1990 to 1994 was entered in khasra Panchsala Ex.P-5 & P-6 and after death of Anath Vishwas, the possession of plaintiff was recorded in 1997 vid.e Ex.P-7. Both the Courts have recorded concurrent ficiding that the defendants/appellants have dispossessed the plaintiff/respondent from a portion of the suit lands. The finding recorded by both the Courts is thus a pure finding of fact which is based on proper appreclation of the evidence oral as well as documentary. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. In view of the above, M.C.P. 1672/2005 for grant of stay stands disposed of. There shali be no order as to costs. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge