Raipur, C.G v. Ramadhar

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Judgment On Board

22.08.2022

The challenge in the present second appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2011 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Balodabazar, district Raipur (now Balodabazar Bhatapara) in Civil Appeal No.54-A/11. Vide the said judgment and decree the First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Baloda Bazar, district Raipur in Civil Suit No.98A of 2009. The trial Court had dismissed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction sought for by the appellant-plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2010.

The subject land in dispute is Khasra No.742/7 measuring 0.0008 hectare i.e. 2 decimal of land situated at village Thelki, Tehsil Palari, District Raipur (now Balodabazar Bhatapara). 2

The claim of the appellant-plaintiff for title and injunction over the subject land was solely based upon the receipt of Rs.1450/- dated

22.04.1983 Exhibit P-1 paid to one Asha Bai. Asha Bai is one of the legal heirs of deceased Bihari Das who had two other daughters namely Noni Bai and Chhoti Bai. The claim of the plaintiff was that on payment of the aforesaid amount to Asha Bai they had purchased the aforesaid two decimals of subject land. However, the said land was encroached upon by defendant no.1 which led to the filing of the civil suit.

Perusal of the pleadings and the evidences which have come on record it appears that though the receipt on the basis of which the suit was filed was in the name of Asha Bai but the said Asha Bai was not a party to the Civil Suit nor in the First Appeal nor was the original owner or any of the legal heirs of the original owner Bihari Das made a party to the said dispute. On the contrary, the defendant no.1 had claimed title and right over the said subject land on the basis of a sale deed executed in the year 1995 between the joint owners namely Santosh and Bharose Das who were in fact the legal heirs of Bihari Das with defendant no.1 Ramadhar. The sale deed Exhibit D-1 executed in 1995 between defendant no.1 and the original owners Santosh and Barose Das was a registered sale deed. All these facts were taken note of by the two Courts below while deciding the suit and dismissing the same both at the stage of Civil Suit as also at the stage of First Appeal.

The appellant has not been able to show any substantial question of law from the two judgments under challenge in the present second appeal. A Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC mandatorily 3 requires a substantial question of law for entertaining the same. In the absence of any substantial question of law, moreover, the findings arrived at by the two Courts below being purely finding of fact based on the evidence which has come on record, this Court does not find any strong case made out calling for an interference with the two judgments under challenge in the instant second appeal.

The appeal thus being devoid of merits deserves to be and is accordingly rejected affirming the two orders passed by the Courts below. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Khatai Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge