Somarsay And Ors vs Hingo Bai And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 871 Chatt

                          1

                                                  NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                 SA No.237 of 2012

  1. Somarsay, S/o Vishwyamar,   Caste    Gond,   Aged
     about 43 years

  2. Jaykaran, S/o Vishwyamar,   Caste    Gond,   aged
     about 65 years

  3. Devsharan, S/o Shankar, Caste Gond, aged bout
     70 years

  4. Dhansay, S/o Ramdhan, Caste Gond, aged about
     45 years

  5. Indrapal, S/o Mansay, Caste Gond, aged about
     60 years

  6. Anrup, S/o Dalpratap, caste Gond, aged about
     40 years

     All are cultivators and residents of Village
     Modipara, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya
     (C.G.)

                                     ­­­­ Appellants

                       Versus

  1. Hingo Bai, Wd/o Motilal, Caste Gond, aged
     about   50  years,  Housewife,   R/o  Village
     Modipara, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya
     (C.G.)

  2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector,
     Koriya, District Koriya (C.G.)

                                     ­­­­ Respondents

For Appellants Mr. A. K. Shukla, Advocate

For Respondent­State Mr. Sunil Otwani, Addl. AG

Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

06/07/2021

1. Heard on admission and formulation of

substantial question of law in this second

appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First

Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal

preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs vide

judgment and decree dated 25.04.2012 passed by

the learned First Upper District Judge,

Manendragarh, Baikunthpur, District Koriya

(C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.14A/2011 affirming

the judgment and decree of the Trial Court

dated 30.09.2010 passed by the learned Civil

Judge Class­II, Baikunthpur, District Koriya

(C.G.) in Civil Suit No.22­A/2009, whereby the

learned Trial Court dismissed the suit

preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs for

declaration of title and permanent injunction.

3. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the

appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that both

the Courts below have committed a legal error

in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs by

recording a finding perverse to the record and

by holding that the plaintiffs have not

perfected their title by way of adverse

possession, therefore, the plaintiffs have no

right and title over the suit land. As such,

the appeal involves substantial question of

law for determination and deserves to be

admitted for hearing.

4.   I     have     heard      learned          counsel           for     the

     appellant/plaintiff,                      considered                  his

     submissions       made    herein­above            and    also        went

     through          the         records              with          utmost

     circumspection.


5.   The     suit     land     bearing          Khasra        No.341/14,

341/15, 341/17, total area 1.219 hectare, new

Khasra No.479, area 1.340 hectare is

admittedly the government land, in which the

plaintiffs claimed declaration of title and

permanent injunction by filing a suit stating

that Motilal, the husband of the defendant

No.1, illegally got his name mutated in the

revenue records, whereas he never remained in

possession. As such, the plaintiffs are in

possession and title be declared and permanent

injunction be granted in their favour, which

was opposed by the defendant No.1 by filing

her written statement stating that the patta

was granted in favour of her husband Motilal

and he remained in possession of the suit land

and in the year 2009, the plaintiffs have

cultivated the suit land forcibly, therefore,

the suit deserves to be dismissed.

6. The Trial Court upon appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence available on record

dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs

have failed to prove their possession and no

decree can be granted on the basis of adverse

possession, whereas the patta was granted in

favour of defendant No.1's husband Motilal, as

such the plaintiffs are not entitled for

decree, which has also been affirmed by the

First Appellate Court.

7. Both the Courts below have concurrently

recorded a finding that the patta was granted

in favour of Motilal, the husband of defendant

No.1, and he remained in possession for very

long time and in the year 2009, the plaintiffs

have dispossessed the defendant No.1,

therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for

declaration of title and permanent injunction.

First Appellate Court has not only recorded a

finding that the suit land is the government

land, in which the defendant No.1's husband

was in possession for very long time for 30­40

years and after his death, the defendant No.1

is in possession and the plaintiffs are in

possession only for last 3 years, but also

recorded a finding that the plea of adverse

possession is not proved and even otherwise no

relief has been sought against the Government,

while the suit land is the government land and

the patta of the suit land has already been

granted in favour of Motital Lal, the husband

of defendant No.1, as such the plaintiffs are

not entitled for any relief.

8. The findings recorded by the two Courts below

holding that the suit land is the government

land, in which the plaintiffs have neither

strictly raised the plea of adverse possession

nor they have proved the adverse possession

for last 30 years, whereas they are in

possession only for last 3 years and the patta

has already been granted in favour of Motital

Lal, the husband of defendant No.1, therefore,

they are not entitled for decree are the

findings of fact based on the material

available on record, which are neither

perverse nor contrary to record.

9. I do not find any substantial question of law

for determination in this second appeal. It

deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in

limine without notice to the other side. No

order as to cost (s).

Sd/­ Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge

Nirala