Mehamooda B vs Abdul Latif

Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants.

By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants vide judgment and

decree dated 19.04.2012 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.34A/2011 affirming the judgment and

decree of the Trial Court dated 09.02.2005 passed by the learned 1st Civil Judge ClassÂII, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.2A/2003, whereby the learned

Trial Court decreed the suit preferred by the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, would submit that the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below that the

plaintiff has purchased the suit land vide ExÂP/1 dated 19.05.1992 is perverse finding to the record. As such, the appeal involves substantial question

of law for determination and deserves to be admitted for hearing.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, considered his submissions made hereinÂabove and also went through the records with

utmost circumspection.

The two Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding that the plaintiff has purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 19.05.1992

(ExÂP/1) and the defendants have no title on the basis of the said ExÂP/1 agreement to sale. The said finding recorded by the two Courts below

holding that the plaintiff being the title holder of the suit land is entitled for decree for possession is finding of fact based on the material available on

record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record.

I do not find any substantial question of law for determination in this second appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without

notice to the other side. No order as to cost (s).