Ram Vilas v. Maniram

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SA No. 507 of 2005 Ram Vilas, aged about 52 years, S/o Janakram Kurmi, R/o Village Gidhori, Tah & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Appellant

Versus

1. Maniram, aged about 47 years S/o Mahesh Suryavanshi, R/o Village Gidhori, Tah & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

2. Ganiram, aged about 44 years S/o Mahesh Suryavanshi, R/o Village Seepat, Tah. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

3. Santosh, aged about 32 years, S/o Punnilal Suryavanshi, R/o Village Seepat, Tah Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

4. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Bilaspur C.G. ---- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. R.K. Jaiswal, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 14.02.2019

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant No. 2 on the question of admission of appeal.

2. This second appeal is preferred by appellant/ defendant No. 2 under Section 100 of CPC.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession stating interalia that they are owners and title holders of khasra No. 1351/2 area 0.15 acre and also pleaded alternatively that they have perfected their title over the land bearing khasra No.561 area 0.50 acre.

4. The defendant No. 2 denied the plaint allegations and prayed for dismissal of suit. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are title holders of the land bearing khasra No. 1351/2 area 0.15 acre and negativated the plea of exchange and held that it has been given only for the purposes of

cultivation and the trial Court further held that sale deed executed by Narayan Singh in favour of defendant No. 2 on 04/06/1981 is invalid and defendant No. 2 has not perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession which has been upheld by the First Appellate Court in appeal preferred by defendant No. 2.

5. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs are title holders of the suit land and defendant No. 2 has failed to prove and establish adverse possession over the suit land and has not perfected his title by way of adverse possession. The finding recorded by two Courts below is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding.

6. Accordingly, the second appeal being devoid on merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. No cost(s) Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Pawan