Chattisgarh High Court
Lamu Gond vs Chhabilal Gond And Ors on 27 July, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Second Appeal No. 31 of 2014
Lamu Gond, S/o Chamra Gond, Aged About 60 Years, Occupation -
Agriculturist, R/o Tendutola, Patwari Halka No. 47, Thana- Raingakhar, Civil
& Revenue Distt. Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Chhabilal Gond, S/o Agariya, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Tendutola,
Patwari Halka No. 47, Thana- Raingakhar, Civil & Revenue Distt.
Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh.
2. Sukhdev Gond, S/o Chain, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Tendutola,
Patwari Halka No. 47, Thana- Raingakhar, Civil & Revenue Distt.
Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh.
3. Bhagel S/o Uderam Gond, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Tendutola,
Patwari Halka No. 47, Thana- Raingakhar, Civil & Revenue Distt.
Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh.
4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Collector, Kabeerdham, Distt.
Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
___________________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri
Amit Tirkey, Advocate.
For State : Ms. Ishwari Ghritlahare, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment On Board
27/07/2022
1. Heard on admission.
2. This second appeal is preferred by the appellant herein/plaintif
against the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.01.2013 passed
by Additional District Judge, Kabirdham, (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.84-
A/2012 arising out of judgment and decree dated 30.06.2011 passed
by 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Kabirdham, (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.66-A/2009
by which the trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintif and the
same has been afrmed by the appellate Court.
3. Facts
of the case are that the Appellant herein/Plaintif has fled a
Civil Suit on 03.08.2009 for declaration of title, possession and
permanent injunction for the suit land situated at village - Tendutola,
Khasra No.49/2, Rakba 4 acres with the averment that he is in
possession of the suit land as the owner and the adjacent land of
defendants is situated in the north and east side and they are raising
dispute regarding boundary of the land and in the month of April,
2009, respondent/defendant No.2&1 have encroached 1 acre and ½
acre of land respectively of the plaintif. Thereafter, appellant
herein/plaintif fled an application for demarcation and after
demarcation, the respondents have cut the crop of the appellant and
they are not giving the possession as per demarcation. Respondents/
defendants No.1 to 3 have fled their written statements as well as
their counter claim. It was pleaded by them that the land in question
is 5 acres and respondent No.3 is in possession of the same for last
50 years and a Patta has been granted to him by the Government on
18.03.1981 and he is doing the agricultural activities and also gives
the land on rent to other persons, but the appellant herein, with the
collusion of revenue ofcers obtained some revenue papers in his
name and is trying to disturb the possession of respondent No.3. The
appellant has fled the reply of the cross suit denying the averment
made by respondent No.1 to 3.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed issues
and after appreciating the evidence available on record, dismissed
the suit fled by the appellant herein/plaintif. Being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree of the trial Court, appeal was preferred by the
appellant/plaintif before the appellate Court which was also
dismissed by the said Court. Hence, this second appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintif submits that
fndings of the Courts below in all the issues are against the oral and
documentary evidence available on record. The appellant has proved
his case by producing oral as well as documentary evidence but both
the Courts below have wrongly dismissed the suit. From the material
available on the record, it is duly proved that the land in question has
been obtained by the appellant through Patta in the year 1987 and
since then he is in possession of the said land, therefore, he is
entitled for decree of permanent injunction.
6. Shri H. B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent No.3 opposes the arguments advanced by counsel for
the appellant and submits that after due appreciation of both oral
and documentary evidence, learned trial Court as well as appellate
Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the appellant herein.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the
judgment of Courts below and also gone through the evidence
adduced by the parties before the trial Court with utmost
circumspection.
8. Appellant/plaintif has fled the Civil Suit claiming himself as the
owner of land bearing Khasra No.49/2, Rakba 4 acres. The
defendants/respondent No.1 to 3 in their counter claim have claimed
that defendant/respondent No.3 has obtained the land Khasra
No.49/2, Rakba 5 acres through Patta and he is also in possession of
the suit land from the last 50 years i.e. since the time of his ancestors.
9. Appellant/plaintif has fled his Patta i.e. Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 before
the trial Court. According to the entries made in Ex.P/1, a part of
Khasra No.50, Rakba 1 acre was given on Patta to the
appellant/plaintif in the year 1988-1989 and according to the entries
made in Patta i.e. Ex.P/2, total land ad-measuring 4 acres which was
the part of Khasra No.49 was given to the plaintif on Patta in the
year 1987. According to the claim of appellant/plaintif, the suit land
is the Khasra No.49/2 ad-measuring 4 acres but on perusal of Patta
i.e. Ex.P/2, it is clear that it is not related to Khasra No.49/2 and only a
part of Khasra No.49 has been given on Patta. The appellant/plaintif
has failed to establish total area mentioned in Khasra No.49 and how
much of its part has been given to him. Whereas in the documentary
evidence produced by the respondents, it is clear that Khasra
No.49/2, Rakba 5 acres is recorded in the name of respondent No.3 in
revenue records. From the admission made by the appellant/plaintif,
he has failed to establish that whose land is there in the boundary in
Khasra No.49. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, both
documentary as well as oral, the trial Court and appellate Court have
rightly held that plaintif has been failed to prove that the suit land is
Khasra No.49/2 Rakba 4 acres and he holds the title and possession
of the said land. Both the Courts below have also rightly held that the
suit land is Khasra No.49/2 Rakba 5 acres and the same is in
possession of respondent No.3 which he had received through Patta.
10. The fndings arrived by both the Courts below is based upon proper
appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties and therefore,
cannot be held to be perverse one. From perusal of the records, it
also appears that neither the statements of the parties were mis-
interpreted nor any of the documentary evidence was mis-read while
arriving at such a conclusion.
11.Consequently, I do not fnd any infrmity in the fndings so recorded
by the Courts below. It therefore, deserves to be and are hereby
afrmed.
12.In view of the above discussion, I do not fnd any question of law.
13.Accordingly, this second appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to
cost(s).
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Prakash
