The Patna High Court dismissed a second appeal in a civil suit concerning property title and possession, holding that the first appellate court's finding lacked perversity and no substantial question of law existed.
Second Appeal dismissed; First Appeal and Lower Court decrees stand affirmed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.588 of 2010
======================================================
Both sons of late Madan Yadav, resident of village Kolhaypatti, PS Murliganj, District- Madhepura
.... .... Appellants
Versus
.... .... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharan, advocate For the Respondents : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER
9 11-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
Patna High Court SA No.588 of 2010 (9) dt.11-04-2013
2/6
for hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Patna High Court SA No.588 of 2010 (9) dt.11-04-2013
3/6
encroached upon the land of the plaintiff. They did not claim their title over the land mentioned in schedule 1 of the plaint. The defendants first party contended that the land mentioned in schedule 2 of the plaint was not a public road in use of and occupation of the plaintiff and general public and in fact they had right, title and interest over the suit property.
“(iv) Whether the plaintiff has got subsisting title over suit land mentioned in schedule I of plaint?
(v) Whether the plaintiff is liable to get recovery of possession over the suit land mentioned in schedule 1 of the plaint?
(vi) Whether the defendants are trespassers over the suit land mentioned in schedule 2 of the plaint and whether the defendants are liable to be evicted fro the suit land mentioned in schedule 2 of the plaint?”
Patna High Court SA No.588 of 2010 (9) dt.11-04-2013
4/6
“(i) Whether the plaintiffs/ respondents have got right title over the suit land as described in schedule I of the plaint?
(ii) Whether the suit land as described in schedule II of the plaint is Garmajarua Aam land and the defendants/ appellants are trespassers over the same and they are liable to be evicted from the said Garmajarua land?
(iii) Whether the story of forcible dispossession of the plaintiffs by the defendants from the land as described in schedule I of the plaint?” (quotes are verbatim)
Patna High Court SA No.588 of 2010 (9) dt.11-04-2013
5/6
holding title of the defendants first party over the suit land is perverse and is contrary to evidence available on record. He submitted that schedule 2 property was a Gairmazarua Aam land which was evident from the evidence of PW 5, the plaintiff, PW 2 and PW 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, with reference to exhibits 3 and 4, the order dated 29-11-1969 passed in case No. 577/68 and the compromise petition filed therein respectively, that there was sufficient material before the courts below to prove that it was a Gairmazarua Aam land. The finding of the first appellate court on schedule 2 property, he submits, is contrary to the evidence available on record.
Patna High Court SA No.588 of 2010 (9) dt.11-04-2013
6/6
In my opinion, thus, the second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
BKS/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the finding of fact by the first appellate court regarding the title over the suit land described in the plaint schedules is perverse and contrary to evidence?
DAYANAND YADAV AND ORS
SR BINDESHWARI YADAV AND ORS
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
