Judgment:
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :JUDGMENT
: S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.81/2011 Sattar Khan versus Chairman, Municipal Board, Churu & ORS.Date of Judgment :: 15.1.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.S.G.Ojha, for the appellant/s.
Mr.D.C.Sharma, for the respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr.Yashwant Mehta, for the respondent No.3.
---- BY THE COURT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.10.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Div.).Churu, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed and the same has been upheld by the appellate decree dated 7.3.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Churu.
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his ownership rights and permanent injunction regarding a strip of land said to be situated near his house.
The suit was resisted by the respondent-Municipal Board, Churu and the private respondent.
The trial court framed several issues.
The material being as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land for over 30 years and as to whether the plaintiff has trespassed on 2 the land, from which the Municipal Board was entitled to remove the plaintiff.
After evidence was led by the parties, the trial court decided both the issues against the plaintiff and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was trespasser on the land in question and the Municipal Board was entitled to remove him by adopting due process of law.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed fiRs.appeal, wherein the fiRs.appellate court based on the material available on record, came to a conclusion that the finding recorded by the trial court that the land in question is a part of way and the plaintiff has trespassed on the said land does not call for any interference.
Having gone through both the judgments passed by the trial court as well as fiRs.appellate court and having heard learned counsel for the appellant, it is apparent that the findings recorded by the trial court as upheld by the fiRs.appellate court are pure findings of fact and the appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the said findings from oral or documentary evidence.
In that view of the matter, as the appeal does not involved any substantial question of law and the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are findings of fact, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI).J.
rm/64