AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
CM No. 2126-C of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the delay, if any, in making up the deficiency in Court fee, is condoned.
CM No. 2127-C of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
RSA No. 789 of 2012 (O & M)
This is defendant''s second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent restraining him from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the suit land in any manner has been decreed. It was averred in the suit that the plaintiff-respondent is exclusive owner in possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 132/22/1 (0-8) situated in village Budhera, Tehsil and District Gurgaon; and the defendant has no concern with the same. Plaintiff filed an application for demarcation of the suit land. Local Commissioner was appointed but the defendant did not allow him to demarcate the suit land. Since the defendant was bent upon dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land, necessity arose to file the suit.
Upon notice, defendant-appellant contested the suit and filed written statement alleging therein that the land in question is owned and possessed by him. He is having a residential house therein and due to negligence of Consolidation Official, the land in dispute has been shown to be a Rasta. It is further case of the defendant-appellant that he moved an application for correction in the revenue record.
On the basis of the evidence adduced, both the courts below have found that the defendant-appellant has failed to prove that he was owner in possession of the suit land. Admittedly, the application filed by him to make correction in the revenue record has also been dismissed vide order dated 19.05.2007 (Ex. P-19) and the same has become final as admittedly the aforesaid orders have not been challenged.
In view of the aforesaid fact alone, this Court finds no merit in this appeal, as the findings of the courts below are based on appreciation of evidence and the revenue record produced. Nothing contrary has been shown. No substantial question of law, as raised in the grounds of appeal, arises for consideration of this Court.
Dismissed.