Hardayal Balmiki vs Ramprasad and Others

Rohit Arya, J.—Heard.

This appeal by plaintiff u/s 100 of C.P.C. is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 10/03/2014 passed by District Judge, Sheopur, in Civil Appeal No. 24-A/2013; confirming the judgment and decree dated 4/9/2013 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class II, Sheopur in Civil Suit No. 61-A/2013. By the impugned judgment and decree the plaintiff''s suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

Plaintiff filed a suit inter alia contending that in village Dhodhar, Tahsil and District Sheopur as per the attached map to the suit, open area and house is of plaintiff''s ownership and possession marked in red ink as "ABCD" and since the time of his ancestors. On 15/11/2012, the defendants have threatened him of forcible dispossession and tried to demolish the boundary wall taking advantage of the fact that plaintiff is serving at Jaipur (Rajasthan). Having come to know about the alleged illegal activities of defendants, plaintiff filed the instant suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction.

Defendants No. 1 to 3 filed joint written statement whereas remaining defendants have filed written statements separately denying the plaint allegations inter alia contending that suit land has never been either in possession of ancestors of plaintiff or plaintiff. Plaintiff has no connection with the suit land. As such defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

On the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, trial Court dismissed the suit.

On appeal, the first appellate Court had re-appreciated the evidence on record and found that neither in the plaint nor in the deposition, plaintiff has brought on record as to where, on which survey number, in which Mohalla/ward the suit land is situated. The whole suit is based upon a map prepared by one Fahim Khan which otherwise has no documentary basis. Even the map so produced has not been proved in trial. Plaintiff has claimed to be in possession over the suit land for last 58 years but there is no documentary evidence on record with regards to mutation, payment of taxes, Lagan etc. to support the claim of possession.

Under such circumstances, in absence of documentary evidence on record as regard the alleged claim of possession over the suit land for last 58 years, the claim of the petitioner has been negated. Accordingly, the first appellate Court concurring with the findings of the trial Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

Having gone through the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the view that the entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of facts which in the opinion of this Court do not warrant any interference u/s 100 of CPC. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Appeal is therefore, dismissed.