Hari Singh vs. Lalaram

Court No. - 59 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 1033 of 2018 Appellant :- Hari Singh Respondent :- Lalaram And 7 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Arjun Singh Solanki Counsel for Respondent :- Geetam Singh,Prem Prakash Chaudhary

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Stay application alongwith supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

Heard Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri P.P. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents.

O.S. No. 265 of 2005 (Hari Singh Vs. Lalaram and others) was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the disputed property described as "A E F G" in the plaint. The suit was dismissed by judgment dated 26.7.2013, passed by the Court of IInd Civil Judge (J.D.) Kanshiram Nagar (now known as Kasganj). Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment the plaintiff-appellant filed a Civil Appeal No.26 of 2013 (Hari Singh Vs. Lalaram and others) which was dismissed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Kasganj by judgment dated 30.5.2018.

Aggrieved with these two judgments, plaintiff-appellant filed the present appeal under Section 100 C.P.C.

Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to establish his ownership and possession over the disputed property. The Courts below have also noted the fact that the P.W. 1 - Hari Singh, in his cross examination has stated that he does not know Khasra number of the disputed property and he has not seen any paper relating to the disputed property. He has also shown ignorance about the boundaries and length and breadth of the disputed property. The Amin Commission has not found any Khunta over the disputed property belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not filed any objection to the aforesaid Commission's report. No belonging of the plaintiff over the disputed land was found by the Amin Commission. The land of the plaintiff was found on the north side of the disputed land as per paper No.4 Ka. Although it was mentioned in the plaint that the disputed land is part of Khasra plot no.29 but the plaintiff-appellant has failed to establish it by any evidence. Even in his cross examination the P.W. 1 - Hari Singh stated that he does not know plot number of the disputed land and he has not seen any paper relating to it. He was even unaware of the boundaries and length and breadth of the disputed land. Briefly on these facts and evidences both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to establish his ownership and possession over the disputed property. The findings so recorded are concurrent findings of fact which does not suffer from any perversity. The impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity. No substantial questions of law is involved. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 20.11.2018/vkg