SUSHILA WD/O LATE PAVITRANATH Vs. HEMWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants under Section 100 of the CPC questioning the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court by which suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for possession based on title has been decreed by the trial court.

(2.) Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit that both the courts below were absolutely unjustified in decreeing plaintiffs' suit for possession based on title by recording a finding which is perverse to the record, as it ought to have been held that defendants have perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession, as such, this appeal deserves to be admitted for final hearing by formulating substantial question of law for determination.

(3.) Original plaintiff - Digamber Nath and father of original defendants - Manohar Nath, both were brothers. Manohar Nath firstly filed a suit for partition against Digamber Nath bearing civil suit No. 23A/67 in the Court of Civil Judge Class-I vide Ex. P/6, wherein by judgment dated 10.12.1968, it was held that Digamber Nath has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession as he is in open and peaceful possession of the suit land since 1946, and Manohar Nath is not entitled for partition. Thereafter, Manohar Nath preferred civil appeal No. 8A/72 which was dismissed on 21.11.1974 vide Ex. P/8 and the second appeal No. 224 of 1975 preferred by Manohar Nath is said to have been dismissed, as such, the title of original plaintiff Digamber Nath over the suit land has become final.