AKHAND PRATAP TIWARI Vs. KASHI NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been preferred against a common judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Faizabad, in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2012, which have been decided against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Sadar, Faizabad, in Regular Suit No. 149 of 2007, by which the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction was dismissed and cross-objections filed by the defendants were allowed. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties as respondents have put in appearance and gone through the records.

(2.) The suit relates to a simple dispute of village land relating to Plot No. 174 and Plot No. 148. The Survey Commission was issued to determine the khasra numbers of the disputed property which has been confirmed and both the Courts below have relied upon the report of Survey Commission, in the light of evidence led by the parties. Both the Courts below have made exhaustive discussions in accordance with evidence and settled law on the point. The Survey Commissioner has tested the disputed property by measuring to "sihaddas" and after crossing some distance measurements have also been tallied to other "sihaddas". No substantial question of law is involved in these appeals. All the disputes relate to assessment of evidence which is not possible in second appeal unless wrong interpretation of evidence has been assigned on the part of both the Courts below. Since the correct principles for survey have been applied by the two Courts below, that too, detailed discussion, no infirmity or perversity can be assigned in the impugned orders. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of Raymond Banerjee (Dead) through L.Rs. and others v. C.J. Victor (Dead) and others, 2008 104 RevDec 522, which is not applicable in the cases in hand.

(3.) A detailed hearing and perusal of the judgment and orders of both the Courts below made it abundantly clear that no substantial question of law is involved in these appeals. Even appreciation of evidence by the two Courts below has not been assailed before this Court.