Fajru And Ors vs Nasru And Ors

The Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge Kaman, District Bharatpur whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants-defendants, was dismissed upholding the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011 passed by learned Gram Nyalaya Kaman, District Bharatpur.

The facts in brief are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellants-defendants stating therein that they were under ownership and occupation of the land of Khasra No.216 situated in Abadi of Village Dharmshala, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur. It was contended that father of the plaintiff Chandru and uncle of the plaintiffs Ummed and Shadi were having 1/3rd share each in the land of Khasra No.216. It was submitted that Ummed and Shadi use to reside with their father during their lifetime and they died issueless. After their death, plaintiff's father came into ownership and possession of the entire suit property and after death of Chandru, plaintiffs were in occupation of the property as its owner. It was alleged that the defendants were trying to encroach upon the land under their ownership and occupation and hence, the decree, as aforesaid was prayed for.

As per the record, compromise was recorded in between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 and the suit was proceeded against the defendants no 2 to 6/appellants only. The present appellants-defendants neither filed any written statement nor any evidence. The testimony of plaintiffs witnesses remained unrebutted as they were not subjected to cross-examination. The learned trial Court has, vide its judgment dated 13.12.2011, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents. Findings have been affirmed by the learned appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 21.11.2014.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that concealing the material facts, the decree has been obtained by the plaintiffs-respondents. It was contended that father of the appellants had share in the property which was not disclosed by the plaintiffs-respondents. It was further argued that the decree was collusive and deserves to be set aside.

Heard learned counsel and perused the judgment impugned as well as record. The contentions raised by the appellants cannot be accepted in absence of any evidence on record to substantiate the arguments. As already observed, the averments and evidence on the part of the respondents-plaintiffs remained unrebutted on the basis of which the learned Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact, which are not liable to be interfered with by this Court under its limited appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.

No substantial question of law is found to be involved in the second appeal. The same is dismissed.