MAYA RAM YADAV Vs. RAM DULAR AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri V.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

(2.) Through this second appeal the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 20.01.2010 passed by II Additional District Judge, Mirzapur, declining to interfere in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court i.e. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mirzapur in O.S. No.206 of 1992.

(3.) It emerges from record that a suit was filed in the year 1992 by plaintiffs-respondents Ram Dular and another against defendant-appellant Maya Ram Yadav seeking permanent injunction against them for not raising construction over plot no.540 said to be owned by them. It was further prayed that the construction raised be demolished and removed from their plot. 11 issues were framed by the Trial Court dealing with the dispute. The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 31.7.2002 decreed the suit. The Trial Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, revenue entries and taking note of earlier litigations, which took place between the contesting parties has recorded findings of fact that the plot no.540 was in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs Ram Dular and Mahdei Devi were owners and having title over plot no.548. This is admitted to the both the parties that the plaintiffs were recorded as tenure holder of plot no.540 while the appellant was recorded as Bhumidhar in respect of plot no.548 in the revenue records. Plot no.540 was a triangular plot. The Trial Court has also taken note of litigation which took place between Maya Ram and Ram Dular and Others in Suit No.53 of 1986. The said suit preferred by Maya Ram was dismissed and at the time of delivery of the judgment by Civil Court after taking note of the oral and documentary evidence, has recorded findings of fact that the defendant-appellant had encroached upon a portion of plot no.540 and the triangular side. Detailed findings have been recorded in arriving at a conclusion by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court has affirmed the findings and declined to interfere in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court.Thus, the 17 years old litigation has come to an end. A perusal of the judgment reveals that these are concurrent findings of facts and in fact no substantial questions of law is made out for interference by this court.