CHUDAMANI Vs. G. ANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant raised two grounds against the impugned judgment dated 29.8.1997 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Satna in Civil Appeal No. 80 -A/91, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1981 passed by Civil Judge, Class -II, Satna in Civil Suit No. 160 -A/81. Firstly, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the respondent Mst. Gongi remarried one Mangal Kahar, after the death of her husband and, therefore, she lost all her right in the property of her husband, Shiv Balak under the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act. The lower appellate Court has found that the factum of remarriage has not been proved by cogent evidence on record. The evidence led by the appellant showed that the respondent was living with Mangal Kahar, after death of her husband, Shiv Balak. The lower appellate Court inferred from the aforesaid fact that no marriage was performed between the respondent and Mangal Kahar. This inference of fact is not liable to be interfered with in second appeal, as it is a question of fact. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had perfected his title by adverse possession. The finding recorded by the lower appellate Court is as per Khasra entries of the year 1959 -60 Ex. D/4, the year 1961 -62 Ex. D/6, possession of the appellant over the suit land. But in the year 1960 -61 in the Khasra Ex. D/5, there is no such entry. All these entries are in the remark column of the aforesaid Khasras. From these Khasras read with the oral evidence led by the respondent, it was held that the land was given to the appellant by way of Batai. Thus, these entries relate to permissive possession. The appellant did not file any other Khasra entries regarding his possession therefor. On the other hand, the respondent filed Ex. P/1, a copy of Khasra entries of the years 1970 -71 and 1971 -72. In these documents, there is no entry regarding the possession of the appellant and the lower appellants Court has drawn its inference from the admission of the respondent that upto the years 1970 -71 and 1971 -72, she had given the land in question in Batai to the appellant. Therefore, it was held that the possession of the appellant was permissive in nature and not adverse to the respondent and, therefore, the plea of adverse possession, raised by the appellant, was not accepted.