Nanak Chand and Another vs Rattan Lal and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—This is the defendants'' Regular Second Appeal filed under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 54/13 of 2009, titled as Kirpa Ram S/o. Sh. Sunaki (deceased) represented through his LRs versus Rattan Lal and others, whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2009, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 36/1 of 2005, titled as Rattan Lal and another versus Tilak Raj and others, stands affirmed. Trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of declaration as prayed? OPP

Whether the entries in the revenue record showing the defendants and their predecessor in interest in the possession are illegal, null and void as alleged? OPP

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed? OPP

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of possession by way of demolition as prayed? OPP

Whether suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD

Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged? OPD

Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD

Whether the suit is barred by limitation as alleged? OPD

Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction as alleged? OPD

Relief.

Plaintiffs have been held to be in possession of the suit land by the Courts below and as such their possession stands protected based on the challenge to the same. It has come on record that plaintiffs purchased the suit land by way of a registered sale deed (Ex. P-16) dated 21.7.1980. Also, the revenue record (Ex. P-3 and P-6) reflects the plaintiffs to be owners in possession of the suit land.

Defendants'' plea that they are in possession of the suit land stands rejected. Both the Courts below have concurrently held the plaintiffs to be owner in possession of the suit land. Plea of the defendants that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession stands rejected.

Learned counsel for the defendants has invited my attention to the statement of Shri Nathu Ram (PW-2) as also document (Mark ''X'') to show that the findings returned by the Courts below are perverse and erroneous as there is admission to the effect that defendants'' predecessor had purchased the land in the year 1950. The contention is not persuasive at all and merits only rejection. PW-2 simply admits that Shri Sunaki father of Shri Kirpa Ram had purchased the land from Shri Gangu Ram and Smt. Gangi Devi, but however, there is no description of the land in the said statement. That apart, there is no document placed on record with regard to such sale transaction. Mark ''X'' is a document, which is not proved in accordance with law and as such no reliance can be placed thereupon. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. No question of law, muchless a substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.