Milan Dubey vs Ramnarayan Sahu

This appeal has been filed by the appellants/ defendants against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No.16-A/2015 affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2015 passed in Civil Suit No.19-A/2013 wherein, the plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction has been decreed.

Plaintiff filed the suit inter alia contending that the suit property described in Para 2 of the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court was of the ownership and in possession of the plaintiffs by virtue of registered sale deed dated 26.06.1991. However, the appellant-defendants since threatened for dispossession, therefore, the instant suit was filed.

On notice, the defendants filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations with the assertion that defendants are in continuous peaceful uninterrupted possession over the suit property for more than 12 years and, therefore, have perfected title by adverse possession.

On such plea and variance, the trial Court framed issues and allowed the parties to led evidence.

The trial Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence, recorded an impeccable findings that plaintiff by virtue of registered sale deed has acquired title over the suit land. However, the defendants were found to be in possession. Nevertheless the trial Court has found that the claim of perfection of title of adverse possession is misconceived and de horse facts on record. The defendants failed to establish as to on which date they had come in possession hostile to the plaintiffs, besides the continuance uninterrupted peaceful possession to the knowledge of the plaintiff, therefore, the trial Court has rejected the claim of adverse possession. Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit.

The first appellate Court after considering the entire facts and evidence placed on record has confirmed the findings so recorded and concurred with the findings of the trial Court as well as the judgment and decree.

Shri Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the judgment and decree tried to canvas that the Courts below have not appreciated evidence in right perspective. The defendants have proved the peaceful possession over the suit property for more than 12 years to the knowledge of the plaintiff, therefore, the findings so recorded suffered from perversity of approach.

Per contra, Shri Atul Anand Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that apart from the fact that plaintiff's title over the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed has been upheld by both the Courts below, the contention of the appellant-defendants related to adverse possession is de horse record. There is no evidence much less plausible evidence for fulfillment of ingredients of adverse possession, particularly, in the context of date of knowledge of plaintiff regarding alleged possession and acquiescence thereof for 12 years since then. Therefore, the contention of adverse possession has rightly been rejected by the Courts below.

Heard.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the judgments impugned, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below upon proper appreciation of evidence have recorded impeccable findings of fact. The entire gamut of the matter is in the realm of fact. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed.