High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110008 Court No. - 36 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 455 of 2024 Appellant :- Ram Sewak Singh And Another Respondent :- Shiv Ratan Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Sheel Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Sheel Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellants and Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent. 2. The plaintiff-appellants filed Original Suit No.158 of 2005
Facts
against the defendant-respondent claiming a decree for injunction in respect of one biswa land covered by Arazi No.236 Mi, situated at Muaja Devri, Pargana Vijaygarh, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. The claim of the plaintiff-appellants was based upon a sale deed and they alleged their possession stating the property to be their Sahan and Rasta etc. 3. The defendant filed written statement and pleaded that pattas were granted by the Gaon Sabha in respect of seven biswa land of the same gata on 19.04.1999 which was approved by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Robertsganj on 23.04.1999. It was also stated that Nazir Ahmad from whom the plaintiffs had purchased the property, had instituted Original Suit No.203 of 1990 before the civil court, which was dismissed on 09.10.1998 against which a Civil Appeal No.39 of 1998 was filed by Nazir Ahmad which was also dismissed on 16.09.2000. The defendant in the said proceedings was Gaon Sabha. Plea of resjudicata based upon the said decisions was raised in written statement. 4. The trial court, apart from discussing the said litigation, also observed that in relation to cancellation of the lease, proceedings were instituted in which the objections filed against the lease were rejected, however, on 31.03.1998, the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur allowed the revision and cancelled all the pattas granted in favour of different persons, including the defendant. Against the said order, a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue in which the order of the Additional Commissioner had been stayed. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has vehemently argued that though lease was granted in favour of the defendant and other persons in respect of seven biswa land, the dispute in the present case was only with respect of one biswa land, which was being used as Sahan by the plaintiffs and the Amin Commissioner had inspected the spot, however, despite the fact that no objections were filed by the defendant against the Amin Report, both the courts below have not examined the question of possession over one biswa land and, hence, the judgments are erroneous and perverse. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent submits that in so far as civil suit filed by Nazir Ahmad is concerned, admittedly, the same has been dismissed upto the appellate stage and as regards proceedings for cancellation of patta, the matter reached upto this Court and finally Writ-B No.35005 of 2015 (Ram Sewak Vs. Board of Revenue and others) has been dismissed by this Court by a detailed judgment dated 12.10.2022. He submits that the appellate court has taken into consideration the judgment of the writ court and has held the claim of the plaintiff-appellants as barred by resjudicata under Section 11 CPC. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the plaintiffs' claim is based upon the sale deed executed by Nazir Ahmad. There was some dispute between Nazir Ahmad and Gaon Sabha with respect to title of the vendor. His claim was turned down against the Gaon Sabha upto first appellate stage and there is nothing on record to indicate that the judgments passed by the civil court and District Appellate Court have been upset in any further proceedings. As regards the pattas granted in favour of various persons including the defendant, the said lis between the State and the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendant on the other, also
Legal Reasoning
has attained finality upto this Court in terms of dismissal of Writ-B No.35005 of 2015 filed by plaintiff-appellants. Therefore, this Court finds that title of the plaintiffs in respect of the disputed land has been decided finally by the Revenue Court which decision has been upheld by this Court and on civil side also, when the land in dispute was stated to be abadi, the claim of plaintiffs' vendor has also been decided against him. The plaintiffs cannot succeed better rights than their vendor Nazir Ahmad. 8. As regards the plea of Amin Commission, though learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that Amin Commissioner had conducted spot inspection and submitted a report against which no objections were filed by the defendant- respondent, he, in this regard, took the Court to internal page 3 of the trial court's judgment which mentions about the Commissioner report. 9. The Court has carefully perused the said portion of the trial court judgment and it is found that while discussing various documents filed by the defendant-respondent, the trial court has referred to the plaint and written statement of Original Suit No.203 of 1990 (Nazir Ahmad Vs. Gaon Sabha) as well as copy of Commissioner's report in the said proceedings. Therefore, the Commissioner report forms part of the proceedings of Original Suit No.203 of 1990 and there is nothing on record to presume or infer that in the present proceedings also, Amin had conducted inspection or that there was some report. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants, later on, admitted that in the present proceedings, no spot inspection was conducted and ground No.5 contained in the memo of second appeal, in fact, is with respect to the Commissioner report which has been discussed at internal page 3 of the trial court's judgment. 11. This Court is of the considered view that in so far as the findings on title and possession of the plaintiff-appellants is concerned, dismissal of suit as barred by resjudicata does not suffer from any illegality as the trial court as well as the appellate court could not have taken a view different from the civil and revenue courts in the present proceedings. The argument of learned counsel based upon Commissioner's report does not stand corroborated in the present proceedings and the Commissioner report in the previous suit was not relevant to decide any question in the present case, particularly when the appellants' counsel himself stated that no Commission was called for in the present lis. 12. The findings recorded by the courts below are pure findings of fact based upon material on record and do not require any interference in second appellate stage under Section 100 CPC. 13. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Decision
14. The appeal is dismissed. 15. Considering the fact that the appellants' claim to come from poor strata of society, no cost is being imposed upon the appellants otherwise they have tried to mislead the Court as regards the plea of Commissioner report which this Court has found to be not corroborated with the proceedings of the present lis. Order Date :- 8.7.2024 AKShukla/-