RAMCHARAN Vs. JODHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the CPC has been admitted by formulating the following substantial question of law for determination:

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession and for declaring the order dated 26-6-1999 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Bodla, duly affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 31- 5-2000, to be not binding upon the plaintiffs, stating inter alia that the subject land bearing Khasra No.116/1, area 4.70 acres, was given on lease to the grand-father of plaintiffs No.1 to 4 namely, Haniya which defendant No.1 has encroached over 3.80 acres and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and possession, as the application for restoration of possession filed under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 by the plaintiffs has been rejected by the Naib Tahsildar on 26-6-1999 which was duly affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 31-5-2000. The suit was filed on 28-8-2006. Defendant No.1 filed written statement stating inter alia that lease was granted by the State on the land bearing Khasra No.116/2, area 3.10 acres and Khasra No.116/3, area 1.40 acres and he is in possession of the aforesaid land and he is not in possession of the plaintiffs' land.

(3.) The trial Court held that the plaintiffs are title-holders of Khasra No.116/1, but dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove encroachment by defendant No.1 and in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, it has been maintained by the first appellate Court against which this second appeal has been preferred in which substantial question of law has been formulated which has been set- out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.