SHANTI DEVI Vs. RAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF -appellant Shanti Devi filed a suit for permanent injunction by averring that she is in possession of the suit land as owner and her possession is open, continuous and hostile to the knowledge of all the proprietors of the village and that her possession has ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession. The suit was resisted on the grounds that the plaintiff is neither in cultivating possession of the suit land nor is she the owner thereof and that the land was owned and possessed by the defendants. On the pleadings of the parties, an issue was framed to the effect, whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession ? OPP

(2.) TRIAL Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and it consequently decreed the suit partly and restrained the defendants from interfering in plaintiff's possession over the suit land forcibly otherwise than in due course of law. Both sides felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court and they filed two separate appeals. Learned Addl. District Judge by his judgment and decree dated 30.9.1996 dismissed plaintiff's appeal and allowed the appeal of the defendants after coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not proved to be in possession of the land in dispute. The suit was consequently dismissed. Second appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court was dismissed by this Court on 14.3.1997.

(3.) ON a consideration of the matter and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the review application deserves to be dismissed. A simple suit filed by the plaintiff-applicant was that she is the owner in possession of the land in dispute and that she perfected her title to the property by way of adverse possession. As already noticed, the Courts below did not accept the plaintiff's plea that she has become owner of the property by way of adverse possession. Trial Court had, however, found the plaintiff to be in possession but that finding was reversed by the first appellate Court on appreciation of evidence and it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove her possession over the suit land. Second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was dismissed after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after recording that a finding regarding possession of the plaintiff has been arrived at by the first appellate Court on correct appreciation of evidence produced on record. The pleas now sought to be raised do not find mention either in the plaint or in the grounds of appeal before the first appellate Court or the grounds of appeal taken in the second appeal. There is thus no basis for the contention raised now to show that the suit land was left by Muslims and that it vested in the Custodian being evacuee property and therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is excluded. In the absence of any material, the contention which is not based on facts cannot be permitted to be raised in the review application. Besides this, the contention of learned counsel that the Courts should not show any indulgence in the matter of reviewing an order when the review application has been moved by a counsel other than the one who argued the appeal on merits, has force in view of the observations of the apex Court as noticed above in this order. The review application is, therefore, dismissed. Civil Misc. 3567-C and 3302-C of 1997 also stand disposed of accordingly. Petition dismissed.