The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed, in limine, a second appeal against a decree that dismissed a suit for permanent injunction and possession, holding there was no perversity in the lower courts' finding that the land was Government land.
Second appeal dismissed in limine without notice. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 431 of 2009
Gajendra Kumar S/o Bhuwanlal Tiwari, Aged about
37 years, R/o Near Azad Chowk, Rajim, Post Rajim,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---Appellant
Versus
1. Bishal Sharma S/o Narayan Sharma, Aged about 55 years.
2. Ramanuj Sharma S/o Narayan Prasad Sharma, Aged about 52 years.
3. Manoj S/o Narayan Prasad Sharma, Aged about 46 years.
4. Ku. Chhaya D/o Narayan Prasad Sharma, Aged about 42 years.
5. Kumari Bai D/o Narayan Prasad Sharma, Aged about 62 years.
6. Bhagwati Bai D/o Narayan Prasad Sharma, Aged about 55 years.
7. Madhu Bai D/o Narayan Prasad Sharma, Aged about 53 years.
8. Tima Bai D/o Narayan Prasad Sharma, Aged about 49 years.
All above R/o Village Azad Chowk, Rajim, Tahsil
Rajim, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
9. Smt. Khemin Bai Wd/o Late Neelkanth Sharma, Aged about 64 years, R/o Bramhanpara, Rajim, Tahsil Rajim, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2
10. Santosh Kumar @ Lala S/o Neelkanth Sharma, Aged about 32 years, R/o Village Bramhanpara, Rajim, Tahsil Rajim, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Appellant :-Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board
06/08/2020
1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the CPC against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree by which trial Court has dismissed the suit.
2. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that both the Courts below have concurrently erred in holding that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land admeasuring 408 sq. ft. out of the total of 2519 sq. ft. of land bearing Khasra No. 42/1 which is marked as ' च ', ' छ ', ' प ', ' द ' in Schedule 'A' annexed with the plaint, therefore, he is not entitled for permanent injunction and possession,
3
as such, the appeal deserves to be admitted by
formulating substantial question of law in this
regard.
3. Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and possession stating inter alia that he is the title holder of land bearing Khasra No. 42/1 admeasuring 2519 sq. ft and out of that, defendants have encroached upon 408 sq. ft. of land marked as ' च ', ' छ ', ' प ', ' द ' in Schedule 'A' annexed with the plaint and though request being
made by the plaintiff, defendants have not
removed the encroachment from the suit land.
4.Learned trial Court, upon appreciation and
evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on
record, came to the conclusion that the suit land
admeasuring 408 sq. ft. is neither owned by the
plaintiff nor the defendants and the said land is
an abaadi land of which defendants are in
possession. The said finding recorded by the
trial Court has been affirmed by the first
appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the
plaintiff.
5. The concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below holding that suit land admeasuring
408 sq. ft. is an abaadi land and is in
possession of the defendants and it is neither
owned by the plaintiff nor the defendants, being
Government land, is a finding of fact based on
evidence available on record which is neither
perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not
find any perversity or illegality in the said
finding recorded by both the Courts below and it
does not give rise to any substantial question of
law.
6. The second appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Harneet
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of trial and first appellate Courts that the disputed land is Government land in possession of respondents is mistaken.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gajendra Kumar
Bishal Sharma
Ramanuj Sharma
Manoj Sharma
Ku. Chhaya
Kumari Bai
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court