1 S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.33/2008. (Mani Ram & Anr. Vs. Poorna Ram & Anr.) Date of Order :: 21st April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Sandeep Shah] Mr.Sabir Ali ], for the appellants ... BY THE COURT: Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the impugned judgment and decree, this Court is satisfied that the instant second appeal does not involve any substantial questions of law and does not merit admission. Civil suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent Pooran Ram, for recovery of possession and for issuance of perpetual injunction in relation to the land in dispute on the basis of his alleged title and on the allegations of unauthorised taking over of possession by the appellants-defendants, was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 20.05.2006 after finding that the land in question was in possession of the plaintiff after the defendants with their family members executed an agreement in his favour and then, the Gram Panchayat issued its patta in his favour. The learned Trial Court has also found that the land in question was unauthorisedly taken over in possession by the appellants-defendants on 02.08.2002. The learned 2 Trial Court has also rejected the case of the defendants- appellants if the land in question was in their joint possession as their ancestral property and was sold to them by their brother Gajju Ram under an agreement. The learned Appellate Court has endorsed the findings of the learned Trial Court while dismissing the appeal taken by the defendants- appellants. It has strenuously been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants in this second appeal that the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff does not invest him with any right particularly when even the measurements of the land agreed to be sold are not stated therein. Learned counsel further contended that the learned subordinate Courts have erred in accepting the case of the plaintiff set up on the basis of the alleged patta that was issued by his sister-in-law while she was holding the charge of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned for one day. The submissions remain bereft of substance and do not make out any case for interference in second appeal. Fundamental of the matter remains that the plaintiff claimed his title on the basis of patta issued by the Gram Panchayat; and in that regard the plaintiff stated that the land was sold to him by the defendants and their family members on 16.04.1989 and was handed over in his possession and he 3 remained in possession thereof and, thus, was issued patta by the Gram Panchayat. The learned Appellate Court has noticed the contention of the appellants about want of measurements in the agreement but has referred to the fact that the agreement otherwise contains the description of the property with four boundaries and regarding the same land, the Gram Panchayat had issued patta stating the same boundaries and also stating the measurements; and hence, has found that there was no difficulty in identifying the property in question. Even if the plaintiff has referred to the fact of an agreement regarding the land in question having been executed in his favour by the family of the defendants, the crucial fact remains that the plaintiff has been issued a document of title by the Panchayat; and standing such document of title, the agreement in question does not carry much relevance. Even when the agreement in question is removed out of consideration, for the present purpose, the title of the plaintiff to the suit property stands established by the said patta issued by Gram Panchayat. So far the submissions suggestive of the patta having been issued in a clandestine manner or being otherwise illegal are concerned, the same have also been rejected by the learned subordinate Courts particularly with reference to the 4 admission of the defendants that they did adopt proceedings for cancellation of the said patta before the Collector concerned and the proceedings terminated against them. The patta in question having been upheld by the competent authority, the suggestion about sister-in-law of the plaintiff having issued the patta while holding the charge of Sarpanch for a day hardly carries any meaning or substance. The findings as recorded by the learned subordinate Courts about title and possession of the plaintiff and about trespass by the defendants-appellants are essentially the findings of fact recorded after thorough appreciation of the evidence available on record; and the relief granted to the plaintiff consequent to such findings remains unexceptionable. This appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK