Smt. Pramila Singh Gaur vs Vinod Singh

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

The instant second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 2.2.2013, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (SD), Court No.1, Sitapur in Civil Suit No.962 of 2009 as well as judgment and decree dated 12.12.2016, passed by learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (EC Act), Sitapur in Civil Appeal No.16 of 2013, whereby suit for permanent injunction preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed and the appeal filed thereafter has also been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in possession over a piece of land, which was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha, for a considerable long time. The respondent was interfering in the possession of the appellant over the said land and, as such, a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant-plaintiff for restraining the respondent from interfering with peaceful possession over the land in question. Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the land in question was allowed to be used by the petitioner by Vinod Singh, the then Pradhan and the respondent had no right to interfere in the possession of the appellant. It is submitted that the suit for permanent injunction could not have been dismissed by the Court below, once the possession over land in question was established. It is also submitted that the first appellate Court without properly appreciating the contentions raised by appellant has dismissed the appeal.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the records.

The learned Trial Court while deciding the suit has framed certain issues, translation of which are reproduced below:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession from the last sixteen years over the land shown in the map at point A, B, C, D and marked as red annexed with the plaint?

Whether there is a pathway between southern and western portion of house of plaintiff?

Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by Section 11 of CPC?

Whether the respondent is entitled to special damages under Section 35-A of CPC?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the suit?"

While deciding the said issues the learned Trial court has come to conclusion, on the basis of evidence on record, that the plaintiff has failed to prove her possession over the land in question. It is to be noted that it is the admitted case of appellant that the land in question belongs to gaon sabha and has not been recorded in the name of appellant in the revenue records. The appellant has not been able to show any document to contend that the land in question was in any manner transferred in the name of appellant. There is nothing on record to indicate that the erstwhile Pradhan had transferred the alleged land in the name of appellant by patta or otherwise.

Learned Trial Court has recorded in its finding that the plaintiff has not been able to prove her possession over the land in question. In any case the appellant has no legal right to claim possession over the land in question. The learned Trial Court while recording its finding on the basis of evidence on record has rightly dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court had decided the first appeal filed by appellant after discussing the issues and the evidence led by the parties and has dismissed the appeal on merit.

There are concurrent findings of Courts below which do not require any interference. The instant appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as framed by the appellant or otherwise. The appeal, as such, deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. It is accordingly dismissed.