Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against defendants in the Trial Court pleading therein that the disputed piece of land marked as A, B, C, D, E, F shown in Map annexed with the plaint is in possession of the plaintiff and it was earlier belonging to Prabhu Narain S/o. Laxmi Narain, Ram Bhajan S/o. Chandra Narain and Mangi Narain S/o. Vijay Narain. The said land bearing Khasra No. 3859/5501 measuring 2 Biswas and Khasra No. 3859/5580 measuring 2 Bighas was purchased by Ram Narain S/o. Godhu and Sua S/o. Sukkha through Registered Sale Deed dated 27.12.1958. Thereafter, a Patta was issued in favour of Ram Narain, Teeja and Ram Dev. However, defendants want to dispossess the plaintiff from his property, therefore, a decree of permanent injunction may be passed against the defendants.

3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement wherein it was pleaded that plaintiff has nothing to do with the land in dispute. The said land belongs to Municipal Board. The plaintiff is only a trespasser over it. Learned Trial Court framed Issue No. 1 whether disputed piece of land was purchased by the plaintiff and he is in possession of the same since 1958. Learned Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence of the parties decided said issue against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Trial Court observed that the land in dispute has been converted into Abadi Land and it has been mutated in the name of Municipal Board through Mutation No. 3506 dated 25.4.2004. Trial Court further observed that the plaintiff has failed to place on record any documentary evidence to show his ownership over the land in dispute. Learned Trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

4. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff, which was also dismissed by first appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.9.2008, which is under challenge in this second appeal preferred on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant.

5. During pendency of this appeal, the appellant has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking on record some documents. It is submitted in the application that one important document i.e. Sale Deed dated 28.9.1995 in favour of the plaintiff could not be presented before the Trial Court and first appellate Court due to non-availability of the said document and the same is now annexed with this regular second appeal. The application does not disclose the cogent reason as to why the said document was not placed on record in time and when the plaintiff-appellant came to know about it. No date etc., has been given about knowledge of the said document. In fact, this document was very much in knowledge of the appellant, therefore, the said document, at this stage, cannot be allowed to be taken on record under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC I do not find any merit in the application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

6. Issue No. 1, framed in the present case, will clearly reveal that it relates to question of fact and there is concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below, which cannot be interfered with by this Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

7. A three-Judges-Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bholaram vs. Ameerchand (1981) 2 SCC 414, considered the effect of amendment made in Section 100 of the CPC in 1976, and held as under:

"...The High Court, however, seems to have justified its interference in second appeal mainly on the ground that the judgments of the Courts below were perverse and were given in utter disregard of the important materials on the record particularly misconstruction of the rent note. Even if we accept the main reason given by the High Court the utmost that could be said was that the findings of fact by the Courts below were wrong or grossly inexcusable but that by itself would not entitle the High Court to interfere in the a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document