Brijesh vs Siyaram

Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.—This is a defendants'' second appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference in his peaceful possession in any manner. Plaintiff''s case was that the property in dispute is an abadi land being Arazi No. 533/25x30 (area 750 square meters) which was a gram sabha land and a lease was executed in his favour in 1983. The trial court found that the plaintiff was in possession of the land and a valid patta was executed in his favour.

The defendants contested the suit and claimed that the disputed land is used by them as a sehan land. They denied the possession of the plaintiff. The trial court recorded a finding that the plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit property and he has also proved that a patta was granted to him. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed an appeal which has been dismissed.

The appellate court has also found that earlier Suit No. 171 of 2004, Jagdish Singh v. Meera Yadav, was not in respect of the suit property hence the said judgment was not relevant in the present dispute. The appellate court has affirmed the finding of the trial court in respect of the possession of the plaintiff and the validity of the patta also.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tehsildar''s report, which indicates that no patta was executed, has been ignored by the trial court. No other submission has been made.

I have perused the certified copy of the Tehsildar''s report. The said report does not show that the patta was forged. It only mentions that the signatures of Sub-Divisional Magistrate are not on the patta.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants.

It is trite that the second appeal can be entertained only when substantial questions of law are raised. In the present case, both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the land and the patta was executed in his favour. The said finding is based on the evidence on record and the appellate court, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, in its judgment, has affirmed the said finding of fact. As regards the report of the Teshildar is concerned, it does not state that the patta was forged. The trial court has recorded a finding that merely by opening a door over the suit property, the defendants cannot be held to be in possession when they have failed to establish their title and possession.

The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. S.N. Goyal, AIR 2008 SC 2594 has laid down the law in respect of ''Substantial Questions of Law''. The relevant part of the judgment of the Supreme Court is extracted herein below:

"9.1) Second appeals would lie in cases which involve substantial questions of law. The word ''substantial'' prefixed to ''question of law'' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. ''Substantial questions of law'' means not only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties. In the context of section 100 CPC, any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing in the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law. Where there is a clear and settled enunciation on a question of law, by this Court or by the High Court concerned, it cannot be said that the case involves a substantial question of law. It is said that a substantial question of law arises when a question of law, which is not finally settled by this court (or by the concerned High Court so far as the State is concerned), arises for consideration in the case. But this statement has to be understood in the correct perspective. Where there is a clear enunciation of law and the lower court has followed or rightly applied such clear enunciation of law, obviously the case will not be considered as giving rise to a substantial question of law, even if the question of law may be one of general importance...."

The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 has reiterated the same principles.

In the present case, I do not find any substantial question of law, which warrants any interference under Section 100 C.P.C.

The appeal lacks merits. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

No order as to costs.