FULAN DEVI Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree, rendered on 24.4.2001, by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1994, whereby, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal preferred, by the respondent/plaintiff, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for possession of the suit land.

(2.) THE instant appeal was admitted on 08.11.2002 on the substantial questions of law, existing at serial No. 1 and 2 at page 5 of the paper book. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the additional substantial question of law which was framed by this Court while allowing CMP No. 534 of 2013, on 5.7.2013 and which exists, at, paragraph No. 5 of the application, filed by the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants, hence, now comprises the sole preponderant substantial question of law. The same is extracted hereinbelow:

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants has focused his submission on the illegality, irregularity and defect which exists, in, the order of the learned trial Court rendered, on, 21.12.1993 by which the evidence of the defendants, to, sustain their claim of theirs having acquired title to the suit land by way of adverse possession was untenably closed. Consequently, the said defect and irregularity in the order, affected the decision of the First Appellate Court, in as much, as, the learned first Appellate Court concluded that for want of evidence displaying the defendants/appellants to have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession, as such, the said plea was discardable. It sequelled the inference that the suit of the plaintiff for possession, was decreable. The "defect" has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants to the Court to be curable by way of an additional substantial question of law qua it being raisable, in, second appeal before this Court, as, envisaged by Section 105 of the CPC. While anchoring his submission on the statutory provisions, he submitted, that, even when there was a remedy of appeal or revision available to the appellants, to assail the orders rendered by any Court of law. Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extracted hereinbelow: -