BAINI PRASAD (D) THR. LRS. Vs. DURGA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in R.S.A. No.276 of 1996 who was the defendant in Civil Suit No. 70 of 1988 on the file of Subordinate Judge 's Court, Kullu in Himachal Pradesh, is the original appellant in these appeals by special leave. Subsequent to his death the legal heirs got themselves impleaded as appellants 1(a) to 1(g). The former appeal is directed against the judgment and final order in R.S.A. No.276 of 1996 dtd. 27/12/2007 and the later appeal is directed against the order dtd. 27/3/2008 in Civil Review Petition No.4 of 2008, in the said Second Appeal, passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla.

(2.) Heard, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The succinct narration of facts as above would make it abundantly clear that there are concurrent findings of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court as also the High Court on the questions of ownership over the land in question viz., land measuring 11 Biswancies, as described above and its encroachment by the original appellant. In the said circumstances, we find absolutely no reason to revisit the factual findings on the questions of ownership and encroachment based on the settled judicial principle well-established by precedents that concurrent finding of fact does not call for interference in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any valid ground for interference. (See the decisions in Janak Dulari Devi and Anr. v. Kapildeo Rai and Anr; 2011 6 SCC 555 Ram Prakash Sharma v. Babulal; 2011 6 SCC 449 and Ghisalal v. Dhapubai; 2011 2 SCC 298).