3^' w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Second Appeat No. 192 of 2006 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. ADpeliant (Plaintiff) \ Resoondents (Defendants) Rajkumar Agrawal, S/o Hariram Agrawal, Aged about 30 years, R/o Sevakunja Road, Raigarh, Dist: Raigarh (C.G.) Versus 1 M.S.Thakur, S/o A.S.Thakur, Aged about 36 years. 2. Jagdish Mishra, S/o Jawal Prasad Mishra, Aged about 58 years, 1 & 2 are R/o Civil Line, Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Banwarilal Jagatramka, S/o Basant Lal Jagatramaka, Aged about 80 years, R/o Statton Road, Raigarh - (C.G.) 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Collector Rajgarh - (C.G.) Shri Amit Sharma, Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. Shri AkhilAgrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No.4. JUDGMENT (Passed on 28.03.2007) Heard on admission. 2. The appetlant/pjaintiff has assailed the jmpugned judgment and decree dated 31st January 2006 in Ch/il Appeal No. 16-A of 2004 by 1st Additional DJstrict Judge, Raigarh whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2004 passed in CMI Suit No. 101-A of 2004 by the Addl. Civil Judge Class-1, Raigarh was set aside. The finding recorded by the learned jower Court that the pjaintiff was entitled to issuance of patta over the suit land in his favour and to a permanent injunctjon against the defendants No.2 to 4 was reversed. 3. The plaintiffs suit was mstjtuted on 10.12.1993 and based on adverse possession. However, the plaintifif admitted in paragraph 1 of his testimony that he was jn possession of the suit land from 1983. So far as ^ the sale deed executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff js concerned, jt was also admitted by the plaintifF in paragraph 6 of the testimony that the land purchased by his father is not the suit land. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove adverse possession against the State on the suit land. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant fajled to demonstrate how the pjaintiff was in adverse possession of the suit land. The argument that the Patwari had recommended to the Collector for jssuance of patta of the suit land in favour of the ptaintiff could not help the plaintifT in any manner. Jn thjs view of the matter, the first appellate Court was wholly justi'fied in allowing the appeat while reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court that the ptaintiff was entitled to jssuance of patta of the suit land in his favour and atso to a permanent injunction against the defendants No.2 to 4 from jnterfering with the possession in the suit land. 4. Thus, in vjew of the concurrent finding of fact recorcted by both the Courts below having been based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, no substantiat question of law arises for determinatjon in this appeat. 5. This appeal being devoid of merit js dismissed. There shall be no order as to coste. M.C.P.No.749 of 2006 for stay also stands dismissed. ,UP^»sdld>.Deslunukh Judge Ditip -A>i\«rl ^J