Laxminarayan and others vs Ramprasad and others

Decreeing of a suit of permanent injunction preferred by respondents/plaintiffs and the subsequent dismissal of first appeal preferred by appellants/defendants has impelled the defendants to prefer the instant second appeal u/S.100 of CPC, which has been filed without proposing any substantial question of law, but all the same second appeal is being taken and decided on the question of admission.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. Respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking decree of permanent injunction revealing that by virtue of being a member of the Indian Army the appellant was conferred with lease hold rights over government land under the scheme floated by the State which led to passing of an order on 11.02.1982 by which out of survey No.12, Village Madhavpur, Tehsil Gohad, District Bhind, 2.581 hectare of land was allotted to appellants as a lessee and possession of the same was handed over. The said survey number was renumbered after settlement as 44. Thereafter the name of appellant was mutated as as government lessee by order passed on 1999-2000 by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The appellants after retiring from Indian Army in 2005 started cultivating fields on the said allotted land. However, defendants No.1 to 10, who had no title or interest over the said allotted lease hold land, made attempt to deprive plaintiffs of their rightful possession over the suit land, which impelled the plaintiffs to institute the suit.

Defendants No.1 to 10 in the WS denied all the contentions of plaintiffs and submitted that suit land was never allotted to appellants but is actually government land meant to be used for public purpose. The lease allotted to appellants was criticized by defendants as fake. Defendants also reveal that suit land is occupied by the defendants. The defendants further denied the identity of plaintiffs by alleging that plaintiff is not Ramprasad but Sirnam.

The trial Court framed nine issues on the basis of which evidence was recorded.

The plaintiffs himself along with Harisingh (PW-2) and Udayveer (PW-3) testified before the Court. Udayveer (PW-3) supported the claim of plaintiff, however, Harisingh (PW-2) denied the claim of plaintiff.

On the other hand, defendants produced various witnesses to counter the claim of plaintiff.

While marshaling the evidence of learned trial Judge in para 31 of the impugned judgment tested the legality and validity of instrument of lease Ex.P-6 which was dated 11.02.1982. The trial Court found that the said document was genuine where the plaintiff was clearly shown as government lessee, pursuant to which appellants were given lease hold rights based upon the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer Mehgaon. It was also noticed that appellants had deposited premium as per requirement of lease. The trial Court noticed an order dated 10.04.2000 of the Assistant Settlement Officer Mehgaon, District Bhind where the capacity of plaintiffs was shown as government lessee over the suit land. The revenue records including Bhu Adhikar and Rin Pustika were also exhibited. Plaintiff also produced exhibits with various documents from Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-15 to prove the factum of appellants having worked in the Indian Army.

The trial Court further noticed that revenue records till 2009-2010 in column 12 specifically mentioned plaintiff to be government lessee and thus on the basis of aforesaid uncontroverted evidence, the lease hold rights claimed by the plaintiffs were held by the learned trial Judge to be genuine.

Learned trial Judge and as well as First Appellate Court noticed that defendants failed to produce any evidence, oral or documentary to establish the lease hold rights to be fake.

The record also indicates that there was no evidence brought forth by the defendants to establish their claim that plaintiff is not the same person in whose favour lease hold rights were conferred by the State.

Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff permanently injuncting the defendants from interfering with the lease hold rights and possession of plaintiff over the suit land.

The Appellate Court has upheld the aforesaid findings. After having heard learned counsel for rival parties and  considered  argument  of  rival  parties  and  having perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law arises in the present case and therefore present appeal is dismissed as not worth admitting.

Accordingly, present second appeal stands dismissed, sans cost.