Pradeep Kumar & Others vs Saradi Devi & Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The present second appeal has been preferred by the defendants, wherein, they have questioned the judgment and decree, which has been concurrently rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Rudraprayag in Civil Case No. 65 of 2014 'Smt. Saradi Devi & another vs. Jethu Lal'. On a challenge being given to the said judgment, the same stood affirmed by the Appellate Court by the judgment dated 08.03.2019, as rendered in Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2018 'Pradeep Kumar & Others vs. Smt. Saradi Devi & Another' by the Court of Additional District Judge, Rudraprayag.

Before venturing into the controversy in question, briefly put the case of the plaintiff before the court below was that the plaintiff claimed herself to be an exclusive owner of the property described as to be Khasra No. 1505, whereas, in accordance with the plaint allegations, she has submitted that in Khata No. 00027, wherein, she has been recorded as a Bhumidhar, the defendant as per the khatoni entries of Khata No. 00027 is shown to have purchased Khasra No. 1507 having a total area of 10 muthis of land from one Mr. Darshanu, S/o Mr. Thepdu.

As per the pleadings, which has been raised in the plaint, it was contended by the plaintiffs/respondents that out of the total land purchased by the defendant 6 muthis of land of the defendants/appellants had already been acquired by the Public Works Department for construction of a motor road and in the remaining 4 muthis of land, which belonged to the defendant, he has constructed his residential accommodation and is residing therein. The plaintiff has instituted the Suit that though the defendant had already utilized his entire property purchased by him earlier, he is making efforts to interfere into the peaceful possession of the property lying in Khasra No. 1505, which according to the plaintiff is a property, which has fallen in her share and where there exists her residential accommodation. The cause of action which has been pleaded to have arisen for instituting of the Suit by the plaintiff was that when on 17.12.2014, the defendant along with other allies brought the bulldozer at the place in question and had tried to interfere in the Khata No. 1505, which exclusively stands recorded as per the revenue records in the name of the plaintiff.

It is the case of the plaintiff that, however, any untoward incident could be avoided on account of a timely interference by the police and other neighbourers, who were present on the spot in question. According to the plaintiff, the property has been described in the plaint, which was filed by her as by figure A, B, C, D, as demarcated in the plaint by red colour. In the plaint there was a specific assertion, which was made by the plaintiff to the effect that the controversy pertaining to the wrongful interference over the land in question also arose earlier, which was carried in the proceedings by way of Civil Suit No. 19 of 2001 'Jethu Lal vs. Shankar Lal & Others', which was decided by the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Rudraprayag, vide its judgment dated 29.04.2005, and as per the findings, which has been recorded therein, it has already been specifically held and concluded that the plaintiff happens to be the exclusive owner of Khasra No. 1505, whereas, on the other hand, the right of the defendant was only confined to Khasra No. 1507 and according to the finding recorded in the said Suit, there is no other piece of land, which has been left with the defendant, which could be said to be falling in the area of Khasra No. 1507.

The Suit in question, which was instituted on 22.12.2014, was contested by the defendant/appellant by filing his written statement paper no. 23 ka, wherein, he at the first instance had denied that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff, which has accrued to the plaintiff to institute the Suit in question, because he contends that he has never made any efforts to interfere over Khasra No. 1505, which the plaintiff contends that as per the revenue records, it stands recorded with her and over which the defendant/appellant had no right.

On an overall scrutiny of written statement even in accordance with the pleadings, which has been raised in the additional plea of the written statement preferred by the defendant, he too had confined his rights to be flowing to him from the sale deed executed in his favour in 1996, which admittedly was held to be in relation to 10 muthis of land only, which constituted to be the part and parcel of the land lying in Khasra No. 1507. On the scrutiny of the written statement the two aspects which are quite apparent admitted by the defendant is that the defendant/appellant has not denied the factum of 6 nalis of land having been taken over by acquisition for the construction of road by the PWD department and the pleadings raised by the plaintiff is to the effect that on the remaining 4 nalis of land the defendant has already raised his residential construction. Secondly, in the written statement, which has been preferred by the defendant/appellant he does not at any point of time had denied the fact of finding, which has been recorded in Suit No. 19 of 2001 'Jethu Lal vs. Shankar Lal & Others' as adjudicated on 29.04.2005, the said judgment which has described the limits of the defendant's land attained its finality, wherein, a specific finding has been recorded that after the aforesaid acquisition proceedings and the construction of the house by the defendant no part of the land was left with him lying in Khasra No. 1507. Meaning thereby, so far as the defendant is concerned, he had no right, title or interest remain vested in him in relation to Khasra No. 1505 over which the plaintiff claimed to have her exclusive rights.

It was though not pleaded but during the course of arguments it has come on record that during the pendency of the proceedings, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had been requested for making the demarcation of the property in question, but that was not in accordance with the revenue law as prevalent covering the area, particularly as per the provisions contained under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act. However, there was an inspection report too, which was submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 05.02.2016, before the Civil Court, on which the reliance has been placed, had reiterated the findings, which has been recorded in the Suit No. 19 of 2001 'Jethu Lal vs. Shankar Lal & Others' pertaining to the effect that no other land is left vacant with the defendant, so far it relates to Khasra No. 1507 as per the findings of unchallenged judgment rendered in the earlier suit.

On the exchange of pleadings, the learned Trial Court has framed three issues, firstly pertaining to as to whether the plaintiff happens to be the exclusive owner of Khasra No. 1505. Secondly, whether the defendant had made any efforts to interfere in Khasra No. 1505, which belongs to the plaintiff. Besides the above two major issues, there was no other issue which was sought to be framed for the purposes of substantiating the case by the defendant/appellant or by any party to the proceedings.

Before the Trial Court the plaintiff had filed her affidavit in examination-in-chief as paper no. 53ka2 and had also appeared in witness box as PW 1, and has also adduced the evidence of PW2 Shri Mahavir Singh Butola, who supported the contention of the plaintiff. Besides this, the plaintiff/respondent has also produced the evidences to substantiate her title over Khasra No. 1505 by producing before the Court paper no. 12ga, that was the Khasra pertaining to 1418 fasli, as well as other documents, for example, the judgment rendered in Civil Suit No. 19 of 2001 'Jethu Lal vs. Shankar Lal & Others', which was placed on record as paper no. 15ga1. She has also placed on record the Khatoni of Khata No. 0027 as paper no. 14ga, which showed that plaintiff stood exclusively recorded in the revenue records, and no land of khasra no. 1507 was left with the defendant/appellant.

On the contrary, the defendant too had appeared in the witness box and recorded his statement as DW1, has also got examined one Mr. Shyam Lal, who had appeared in the witness box as DW2. The defendant in support of his contention has filed an affidavit paper no. 89ga1 to show that, as a matter of fact, there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to institute the proceedings as there was no effort made by the defendant ever for interference over the property in question belonging to the plaintiff/respondent.

Under the aforesaid backdrop, the learned Trial Court proceeded to decide issue no. 1 and while considering the same, the learned Trial Court has recorded a finding that as far as the Khasra No. 1505 is concerned, which has been recorded in Khata No. 0027, the plaintiff/respondent happens to be the exclusive owner of the property, and further it has recorded the finding to the effect that as far as the rights of the defendants are concerned, the same stood settled by the unassailed judgment rendered earlier by the Court in Civil Suit No. 19 of 2001 'Jethu Lal vs. Shankar Lal & Others'.

While deciding issue no. 2, the learned Trial Court had after considering the impact of the documents and the revenue entries and also the report of the Revenue Sub Inspector, which was placed on record as paper no. 31ga, he had recorded that the defendant had made an effort to interfere in Khasra No. 1505, which adjoins Guptkashi Gaurikund motor road, and as per the survey commission report paper no. 41ga and the findings were recorded in its paragraph 3, it is clear from the findings that the defendant did made efforts to interfere in the plaintiff's property Khasra No. 1505, under the pretext claiming it to be the part and parcel of Khasra No. 1507.

This act was illegal for the reason that in view of the earlier findings recorded in the judgment dated 27.04.2005 of Civil Suit No. 19 of 2001 'Jethu Lal vs. Shankar Lal', it has already been concluded by the Court that there is no portion of the property, which has been left with the defendant after the issue being decided by the Court by the judgment dated 27.04.2005.

This judgment, which was rendered by the Trial Court on 26.02.2018 was put to challenge by the defendant/appellant before this Court by preferring an appeal and the appellate court too after considering the rival contentions and after formulating, the questions while exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had recorded a concurrent finding pertaining to the title of the plaintiff as well as with regards to the finding in relation to the defendants' right over the property Khasra No. 1507 in the light of the findings recorded in the earlier Suit.

Considering the act of interference by the defendant/appellant over the property of the plaintiff, which stood supported in way of the findings, which has been recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, this Court is of the view that considering the documents on record that the plaintiff/respondent happens to be an exclusively recorded owner of Khasra No. 1505, over which the defendants had no right of any nature, whatsoever, to interfere on the same. Hence, this Court is of the view that this second appeal has concluded by concurrent findings of facts, which does not require for any interference by this Court as there involves no substantial question of law to be answered by this Court.

Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed.

However, there would be no order as to cost.