Gulab Singh and Another Vs. Brijbhan Singh and Others - Court Judgment

Heard.

This appeal under Section 100 of CPC by defendants No. 1 and 3 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29/1/2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Mungawali, District Ashoknagar in Civil Appeal No. 82-A/2012 confirming the judgment and decree dated 15/9/2012 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Chanderi in Civil Suit No. 84-A/2011. By the impugned judgments and decree, the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction has been decreed.

Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that the suit land involved in the suit is an agricultural land ad-measuring 0.669 hectares falling in survey No. 239/16/4 in village Wadera, Tahsil Chanderi, District Ashok Nagar. Undisputedly, suit land is recorded in revenue records in the name of plaintiff as Bhoomiswami.

Plaintiff filed a suit inter alia contending that the suit land all along been of his ownership and possession. Land is duly mutated in revenue records in his name by the Tahsildar Chanderi. There is a Pakka Medh along the boundary wall of the suit land. He is cultivating the land and harvesting the crops. The defendants who have nothing to do with the suit land by demolishing the Medh have tried to make an attempt to take forcible possession and cut away the crops despite resistance shown by respondent/plaintiff. Having the apprehension of being forcible dispossession, plaintiff has filed the instant suit for permanent injunction.

Defendants have filed written statement denying plaint allegations. It is denied that demarcation on the suit land was ever done. It is also denied that defendant have demolished the Medh or ever tried to take possession of the suit land forcibly by cutting the standing crops. It is submitted that there is an error in the Aksh (map) in relation to survey number of the suit land as well as the defendants' land admeasuring 1.353 falling in survey No. 239/2/2, and therefore, they have filed an application on 2/8/2007 before the Revenue Court for correction of the Aksh and plaintiff has knowledge of the aforesaid proceedings. However, with ulterior motive, the instant suit has been filed. With the aforesaid pleadings, it was prayed that suit be dismissed.

Trial Court on aforesaid pleadings, framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, trail Court decreed the suit.

On appeal, first appellate Court has re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and based it conclusions on comprehensive appreciation of the evidence. The first appellate Court has observed that Khasra Panchshalas of the suit land for the year 2009-10 (Ex. P/1), Aksh Naksha (Ex. P/2 and P/6), which establish that the suit land is recorded in the revenue records in the name of plaintiff as Bhoomiswami, the location and dimensions of the suit land is well explicit from these documents. The oral evidence led by the plaintiff himself as PW/1 and that of by PW/2 and PW/3 are to the effect that the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is in existence. As regards, demarcation of the suit land, the documentary evidence is well discussed in para 13 of the impugned judgment wherein reference to Ex. P/3 to P/5 relating to demarcation have been discussed and demarcation was found to have been done on 4/7/2006. At the time of demarcation, the adjacent land owners and village people were also present and the Panchnamas apart from that of others also bears the signature of one of the defendant. It is also observe that appellants/defendants had full knowledge of demarcation being carried out in respect of suit land. First appellate Court further observed that payer of calling for commissioner's report by defendants as regard the suit land was not acceded to for the reason, defendants at no point of time before the trial court have made any prayer in that behalf during the pendency of suit. Moreover, documentary evidence on record establish the fact of demarcation having been carried out in respect of suit land and therefore, prayer of defendants in that behalf found to be of no consequence. As regard, contention of defendant that for correction of Aksh and revenue record, he has filed an application before the Tahsildar Chanderi and order passed thereon by Tahsildar dated 22/3/2010 (Ex. D/4), it is observed that defendants procured aforesaid order without making respondent/plaintiff as party to the proceedings. This reflects ulterior motive attributable to the appellants/defendants to obtain prejudicial order against the plaintiff behind his back and without notice. As a matter of fact, aforesaid order is already challenged by the plaintiff/respondent in appeal before the SDO and same is pending consideration vide Ex. P/7, P/9 and P/10. As such, aforesaid order has no consequence. Considering the aforesaid facts, the first appellate Court has confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court.

Having perused the record and judgment of both the Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that the entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. The Courts below have recorded the findings of facts which are impregnable in nature and in the opinion of this Court do not warrant any interference under Section 100 of CPC. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Appeal is therefore, dismissed.