In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the appellant demonstrates that the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a significant error of law.

Judgment on Board

1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendant, who is the appellant herein, challenging the judgment and decree dated 28/02/2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 59-A/2018 (G.L. Shivarao & Others v. Chandu Bhai Chawla) by the learned V Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (District Bilaspur). By the said judgment, the First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents and modified the judgment and decree dated 05/01/2018 passed in Civil Suit No. 227A/2014 by the II Additional Civil Judge to the Court of I Civil Judge, Class-I, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs had been partly decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. (a) The plaintiffs instituted a civil suit against the defendant seeking removal of construction raised by the defendant over a portion of land admeasuring 48 square feet out of total land measuring 34 × 84 square feet situated at Old Power House Main Road, and for delivery of possession thereof to the plaintiffs, along with grant of permanent and temporary injunction against the defendant.

(b) It is the case of the plaintiffs, in brief, that the suit land bearing Khasra No. 769/2, Sheet No. 08, admeasuring 34 × 84 square feet, situated near Old Power House Main Road, is owned and possessed by them. Out of the said land, the plaintiffs have constructed a pucca house admeasuring 30 × 32 square feet, and have left a strip of land measuring 4 feet in width and 84 feet in length on the eastern side for the purpose of access to the rear portion of the house and for maintenance and repair of the walls.

(c) It is further pleaded that the said land was purchased by the plaintiffs from Smt. Shukwara Bai, widow of late Kamta, resident of Torwa, by a registered sale deed dated 12.06.1968, and since then the plaintiffs are in possession thereof. Initially, a tiled house was constructed over the land, which was subsequently demolished and replaced by a RCC house in the year 1986. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that, at the relevant time, the land situated on the eastern side belonged to one Dr. Verma, along with a house constructed thereon. The said land was subsequently purchased by one Mehboob, and thereafter the present defendant purchased the said adjoining land from the said Mehboob. It is pleaded that after purchasing the land, the defendant started a timber business and began stacking wood adjoining the plaintiffs’ house. Due to such storage of wood in close proximity, particularly during the rainy season when the wood would get wet, excessive dampness was caused inside the plaintiffs’ house, resulting in damage to the walls, including peeling of plaster. It is further pleaded that the act of dumping wood also caused disturbance and inconvenience to the plaintiffs. It is further pleaded that the defendant has illegally encroached upon the plaintiffs’ land measuring 4 feet in width and has raised construction over a portion measuring 12 × 4 square feet by constructing a room thereon, and has also encroached upon an additional area measuring 20 × 4 square feet, and is threatening to raise further construction.

(d) It is further pleaded that the said strip of land was intentionally left open by the plaintiffs for access and maintenance purposes, and the defendant has taken undue advantage of the same. On these grounds, the plaintiffs have prayed for removal of the construction raised