Chhajju Ram and Others vs Rachhpal Singh

Kuldip Singh, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment, decree dated 8.7.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 46-N/2008, affirming the judgment, decree dated 1.12.2007, passed by learned Civil Judge( Senior Division), Nurpur in Civil Suit No. 76/2004.

The facts, in brief, are that the Respondent had filed a suit for possession of the land more specifically described in the plaint against the Appellants on the grounds that he is one of the co-sharers in the suit land. The Appellants during settlement got themselves recorded as Kabiz over the suit land and took possession of the suit land in November 1996 in absence of the Respondent. The interest of other co-sharers in the suit land is with the Respondent, therefore, they have not been impleaded as party, rather the suit is for their benefit.

The suit was contested by the Appellants by filing written statement, in which they took preliminary objections of locus-stand, maintainability, estoppels, limitation and cause of action. On merits, the Appellants took the plea of adverse possession on the suit land by pleading that the possession of the suit land was taken in the year 1973. The Appellants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

The learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Nurpur decreed the suit by holding that the Respondent is entitled to possession and the Appellants have failed to prove their adverse possession on the suit land. In fact, the Appellants were proceeded ex-parte in the trial Court. The Appellants did not lead any evidence in the trial Court.

The Appellants filed an appeal against the judgment, decree dated 1.12.2007. The appeal has also been dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court. The Appellants in the lower Appellate Court also did not file any application for leading evidence. The Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the Respondent is owner of the suit land and is entitled to possession of the suit land. The Appellants took the plea of adverse possession on the suit land, but they have completely failed to prove their adverse possession.

The view taken by two Courts below emerges from the evidence on record. The finding that Appellants are not in adverse possession of the suit land is a finding of fact recorded by two 3 Courts below. It is not a case where two Courts below have recorded a perverse finding by ignoring the material evidence. Re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the Second Appeal. There is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal, which is according dismissed, so also all pending applications.