Dismissed

Salem and Others v. Piyas and Others

Chhattisgarh HC13 Aug 2019SA/146/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal in limine. The appellant-plaintiffs challenged the trial and appellate courts' decree awarding them title and possession over suit land purchased via registered sale deed, holding that adverse possession was not established.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed in limine as it is devoid of merit and does not involve a substantial question of law.

Salem and Others Vs Piyas and Others — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No. 146 of 2006

¶5

Saleem, S/o Late Shri Bahira Budhu, aged about 82 years,

¶6

Tirus, S/o Late Shri Bahira Budhu, aged about 76 years.

¶7

Helariyus, S/o Late Shri Somra, aged about 72 years.

¶8

All by caste Oraon, r/o Village Bada Karonja, Tehsil Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶9

----Appellants/Defendants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Piyus, S/o Late Shri Etwa, aged about 75 years,

¶12

Philip, S/o Late Shani, aged about 76 years,

¶13

Laurance, S/o Late Shri Somra, aged about 70 years.

¶14

All resident of Village Bada Karonja, Tehsil Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶15

The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶16

----Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶17

For Appellants : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4/ State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, PL for the State.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

13/08/2019

¶21

(1) Heard on the question of admission and formulation of substantial question of law

¶22

on this second appeal preferred by defendants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶23

(2) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants would submit that both

¶24

¶25

the courts below have concurrently erred in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff and that give rise to substantial question of law for determination.

¶26

(3) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction stating inter alia that he is title holder of the suit land as he has purchased the same by registered sale deed dated 28.1.1977 and obtained possession

¶27

from the seller namely Alveesh; and his names has also been recorded in namantaran panji on 13.07.1977 but in the year 1985, the defendants started interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit leading to filing of the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶28

(4) By filing written statement, the defendants stated that he has perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession.

¶29

(5) The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record come to the conclusion that plaintiff is title and possession holder of the suit land and is entitled for decree for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction, which has been found favour with by the first appellate Court.

¶30

(6) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants and considered his submissions and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶31

(7) Admittedly, the plaintiffs have purchased the suit land by registered sale deed dated 28.1.1977, in which the defendants started interfering leading to filing of the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction and both the courts below after appreciation of evidence available on record decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the suit was filed within 12 years from the date {28.1.1977} of purchase of the suit land by registered sale deed dated i.e. on 29.07.1986 and the defendants have failed to plead and establish their adverse possession over the

¶32

¶33

suit land under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This finding of fact arrived at by the two courts below is based on material available on record and I do not find it either perverse or contrary to record and no question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

¶34

(8) Accordingly, the second appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is

¶35

hereby dismissed in limine .

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)

Judge

D/-

Salem and Others v. Piyas and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salem and Others v. Piyas and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Singh Vs Shaikh Jabbar and Others

Bajrang and Another Vs Pratap Singh Yadav and Others

Smt.Kumari Bai Vs Mukund Singh Gond and Others

Sunder Sai and Others Vs Dev Kumar and Another

Balram Vishwas Dead Through Lrs Vs Amrendra Vishwas Dead Through Lrs

M/s Ajay Enterprises, Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi Nathani