Manik Das And Others v. Kapil Das And Others

.-l;s^->.

-^ !i-l^^w~'~"'..

3< ^S2^<^ '<^aS^^.^ <^ NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SANo.89of2005 Manik Das and others "~ Appellants/Plaintiffs

Versus

Kapil Das and others "" Respondents/Defendants For Appellants/RIajnfi^ ForState,y:i:::.;::si^-.:;^ Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate.

Shri Ramakant Pandey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justi Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Qrder On Board 03/12/2015 Heard on admjssion.^^^^^^^^^^ 1.

This appeal is directed against impugned judgment and decree dated 23.12.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No.32A of 2004 by which, the learned Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Courts below have committed gross illegality and perversity in holding that the appellants failed to prove that they are entitled to reimbursement of that part of compensation in respect of the land held in their possession and acquired from defendant Kapildas. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the land acquired was a big parcel of land which was jointly held by the appellants and his brother Kapildas. There is overwhelming evidence on record to prove that the

^te^ ./ "'^^s^^ entire land was acquired and the compensation was paid to Kapildas. Kapildas admitted that the part of land of the appellants has also been acquired. Thus, the appellants were entitled to receive their respective share of compensation from respondent Kapildas who received entire amount of compensation from the State under award in the acquisition proceedings.

3.

Both the Court:s below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the appellants/plaintiffs failed to prove that in respect ofthe land possessed by him, compensation was paid by State authorities to respondenVdefendant Kapildas alone.

The Courts below have found that the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to prove that the land which was possessed by him^w^^ acquired and compensation in respect ofthatRartofthslandwhich was in his possession was actually paid to Kapildas.

On the basis bfadmission ofthe appellants/plaintiffs, the Courts belowhave held that the plaintiffs and defendants were in separate cultivating possession of their respective 'L. - share. On the basis of plaintiffs' own admission and their own evidence, the Courts below have also recorded that the property was not ancestral property.

In the absence of there being any proof that in respeet of the land possessed by the appellants, compensation was paid to Kapildas, the Courts below have rightly held that the appellants are not entitled to any decree. 4.

No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Rekha