Bimla vs Rukmani Devi and Others

Kuldip Singh, J.—The daughter of Plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment, decree dated 31.07.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, in Civil Appeal No. 112-S/13 of 2006 affirming judgment, decree dated 04.09.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Theog, in Civil Suit No. 31-1 of 2005.

The facts, in brief, are that Mehar Singh, father of the Appellant, had filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land. The suit was contested by predecessor of Respondents No. 1 to 6, Man Singh, by taking the plea that he was tenant on the suit land and even proprietary rights were conferred in his favour. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit. In appeal, learned Additional District Judge, while dismissing the appeal, has affirmed the judgment, decree dated 04.09.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge.

The trial Court has recorded a finding that vide mutation No. 228 dated 22.03.2002 Ex. DW1/C proprietary rights were conferred upon the Defendant. On the basis of Ex. DW1/C and other material on record, the trial Court has recorded a finding that Mehar Singh predecessor of Appellant had not proved his ownership and possession on the suit land. This finding has been approved by learned Additional District Judge in the impugned judgment, decree. Thus, there is a concurrent finding of fact that Appellant is not owner in possession of the suit land. On the contrary, Respondents are owners in possession of the suit land. It is not shown that this finding recorded by the two Courts below is perverse or the finding has been recorded by ignoring material evidence on record. In second appeal, the re-appreciation of evidence is not possible. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.