Anisa Bai vs Sarmaniya

Rohit Arya, J.—Heard.

This appeal by plaintiff is preferred u/s 100 of CPC against the concurring judgment and decree dated 3/9/2007 passed by Third Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dabra, District Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 76-A/2006; confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 7/1/2006 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Dabra.

Plaintiff filed the suit inter alia contending that the suit land, an agricultural land ad-measuring 0.408 hectare falling in survey No. 1879 was owned and possessed by one Inayatullah Khan. Suit land was transferred by said Inayatulla Khan in favour of the plaintiff by execution of a sale deed dated 2/6/1990 for a consideration of Rs. 9400/-. It is submitted that defendant No. 1 in collusion with Tahsildar has obtained the Patta in respect of suit land in her favour on 11/7/1961; whereas, State has no right or title to allot the Patta in respect of the suit land.

Defendant No. 1 has filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations. It is submitted that she has been given Patta in response to the order passed by the Tahsildar, Dabra on 6/9/1960 and based thereupon by registering a case No. 9/99-2000/A-6, vide order dated 20/10/2000 the suit land has been recorded in her name in the revenue records. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the aforesaid order was dismissed and thereafter the revisions preferred by him before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior and Board of Revenue have also been dismissed. As such, grant of Patta in favour of defendant No. 1 has withstood judicial scrutiny and has been found rightly and validly allotted. It is further denied that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land for the period alleged. In fact defendant is in possession of the suit land since the date of allotment of Patta in her favour. With the aforesaid pleadings, it is prayed that suit be dismissed.

Defendant/State has also filed written statement denying all plaint allegations. It is submitted that Patta has been validly granted in favour of defendant No. 1.

Based upon the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Upon critical appreciation of the evidence on record, trial Court dismissed the suit.

On appeal, the first appellate Court again re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and reached to the finding that ever since the date of grant of Patta, defendant No. 1 is in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit land as has been well discussed in para 7 to 12 of the impugned judgment. Both the Courts below have found that there is no evidence on record to demonstrate the fact that the seller of the plaintiff namely Inayatulla Khan had a valid title over the suit land further the plaintiff has failed to establish the source of title to Inayatulla Khan to execute the sale deed in her favour. In para 14 of the impugned judgment, this aspect has been well discussed. Resultantly, it is found that plaintiff has failed to establish the source of title of its seller Inayatulla Khan to justify the claim of her title by virtue of sale deed dated 2/6/1990. On the other hand, it is found that defendant No. 1 was validly granted Patta by the orders of Tahsildar in accordance with procedure established by law. Further the order passed by Tahsildar granting Patta in favour of defendant No. 1 has attained finality up to the Board of Revenue.

The plaintiff/appellant alongwith this appeal has also filed an application I.A. No. 17561/2007 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC for taking on record certain document, but these documents are not establishing source of title to Inayatulla Khan and therefore, same is dismissed.

Having gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below, this Court is of the view that the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. The entire gamut of the matter is in the real of facts, which do not warrant any interference by this Court. No question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, the appeal being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed.