AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Agrawal, J
This is the Plaintiff's Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated
01.07.2017 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.54/2016 by which, the lower appellate Court, while affirming the
judgment and decree dated 12.07.2016 passed by the 4 th Civil Judge, Class-I, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.710-A/2014, has dismissed the Appeal.
The undisputed facts of the case are that the Plaintiff instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and injunction by submitting inter alia that his
forefathers were in possession over the property in question for over more than 75-80 years while constructing a residential house and as such, has
prescribed his right, title and interest over the property in question by way of adverse possession. It is pleaded further that the Defendants are
interfering in his peaceful possession, therefore, he has been constrained to file the suit in the instant nature.
The Defendants have contested and denied the aforesaid claim of the Plaintiff.
The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, has come to the conclusion that in absence of specific plea of ouster, it cannot be
held that the Plaintiff has prescribed his interest over the property in question by way of adverse possession. As a consequence, the trial Court has
dismissed the suit.
The aforesaid finding of the trial Court has been affirmed further by the lower appellate Court in an Appeal preferred by the Plaintiff.
Being aggrieved, the Plaintiff has preferred this Appeal. Shri Prafull Bharat, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the judgment and
decree as passed by the Courts below is apparently contrary to law. He submits further that the Plaintif's forefathers were in possession continuously
for over more than 75-80 years by constructing a residential house, therefore, has prescribed his right, title and interest by way of adverse possession,
however, without considering the said fact in its proper manner, the Courts below have committed illegality in refusing Plaintiff's claim.
I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the entire record carefully.
Perusal of the record would show that though the Plaintiff has pleaded that his forefathers were in possession over the properly in question for over
more than 75-80 years by constructing a residential house, however, has failed completely to establish the fact that when and from what date, he
asserted is right by disowning the interest of the Defendants. In absence of any such plea coupled with its proof by cogent and reliable evidence, the
Courts below have rightly disbelieved the Plaintiff's claim that he prescribed his interest by way of adverse possession. The findings of the Court
below are therefore liable to be and hereby affirmed.
In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any question of law, much less the substantial questions of law which arise for determination in
this Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. There shall be no order as to costs.