AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
This is the plaintiff's second appeal. The plaintiff's suit for declaration that the order passed by the Bandobast Adhikari, Ambikapur cancelling the
Patta granted to the plaintiff is illegal and void, has been dismissed by the trial Court and in appeal, it has been affirmed by the first appellate Court on
merits as well as on the ground of suit being barred by limitation.
In second appeal preferred, learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff would submit that the finding recorded by the two Courts below on merits as
well as on the question of limitation is perverse and the appeal involves substantial question of law for determination.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff is not the title holder of the suit land, as the Patta granted to him has rightly been
revoked by the Bandobast Adhikari in a valid proceeding by order dated 29-8-1988 as well as held that the suit challenging the said cancellation has
not been brought within the period of limitation. The aforesaid finding recorded by the two Courts below is a finding of fact based on the evidence
available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to record. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and the appeal
deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed, in limine. No order as to cost(s).