In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless such findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to established legal principles, as the appellate scope is limited solely to substantial questions of law.

NAFR

Judgment on Board

1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants/defendants challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 25/10/2016 passed by the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Raipur, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.67A/2015 (Bisaram Yadav & Anr Vs. Rajesh Yadav) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27/07/2015 passed by the learned 13th Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur, C.G. in Civil Suit No.347A/2008 (Rajesh Yadav Vs. Bisaram Yadav & Anr). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. The plaintiff preferred a suit seeking for declaration of title and a permanent injunction, pleading inter alia that the plaintiff is the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 828/1 and 830/1, admeasuring 1400 sq. ft., situated at Village Chirhul Deeh, P.H. No.106 "B", Tahsil and District Raipur. His name is recorded in the revenue records and he is in possession thereof. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff purchased the suit land from the vendor on 13.04.2007, obtained possession, and uses it for supplying building material by storing grit and sand thereon. He duly pays taxes for the same to the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. The said land is recorded in the name of the plaintiff in government records. For the protection of the said plot, the plaintiff obtained due license from the Municipal Corporation, Raipur and, on 29.09.2008, began digging pits for construction of a boundary wall. At that time, the defendants came to the suit land, abused the plaintiff, and stopped him from carrying out the work.

3. The defendants in their written statement, denied all the plaint averments. They submitted that that, as per para 2 of the plaint, the land bearing Khasra No. 828/1 admeasuring 0.17 acre and Khasra No. 830 admeasuring 0.50 acre, situated at Village Chirhuldeeh, P.H. No. 106 "B", Tahsil and District Raipur, was originally in the ownership and possession of Gangaram s/o Veersing Sonkar and others of Chirhuldeeh, Raipur in the year 1954–55. The original landowner Gangaram s/o Veersing Sonkar and others sold a portion of their owned and possessed agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 828/1 and 830 to Smt. Rajkumari w/o Omprakash Bahal, Raipur, vide registered sale deed dated 30.07.1968. Similarly, land measuring 2500 sq. ft. out of Khasra No. 828/1 was sold to Bhagwati, Ramcharan, Ramsagar, Raipur on 30.07.1968. Further, a portion of Khasra No. 830 admeasuring 0.29 acre was sold to Nanku s/o Buddhji Talmale, Jorapara, Raipur on 08.07.1970. They stated that The plaintiff has not clarified from whom and which Khasra number was purchased under the registered sale deeds dated 13.04.2007, 10.04.2007 and 03.04.2007. The defendants have never entered into any dispute with the plaintiff; rather, the plaintiff himself is attempting to forcibly take possession of the land in question. The plaintiff’s claim of title and possession over the said land is baseless.

4. The learned Trial Court, after framing the issues and upon due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, as well as the material available on record, allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Court observed that the plaintiff deposed that he carries on the business of supplying building material and stores grit, sand, etc., on the suit land. As the land is open from all sides, theft of material is frequent, necessitating construction of a boundary wall. On 29.09.2008, when he commenced excavation for the boundary wall, the defendants, accompanied by 25–30 persons, came to the site, abused him, claimed the plot as their own, and obstructed