KANHEYA & ORS. Vs. BHAGWAT & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this second appeal a challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Deeg, District Bharatpur in regular civil appeal No. 01/2006 quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Deeg, District Bharatpur, whereby the learned trial court had decreed the suit for declaration filed by the appellants -plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs'). I have heard the counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.08.2010, passed by the learned first appellate court.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 12.08.2010 indicates that the learned first appellate court has found that the plaintiffs neither proved their ownership from any documents of title nor were found to be in possession of the suit property. Further, from the evidence on record it was found that the plaintiffs for several decades were not even residents of Deeg where the suit property was situated and admittedly had been living away from Deeg for over fifty years. The burden in law on the plaintiffs was not discharged and the plaintiffs failing to bring requisite evidence in support of their case, the suit was deserving of dismissal. The trial court has come to a perverse finding of the plaintiffs' ownership in the absence of any evidence of probative worth. The findings of the learned first appellate court are, in my considered view, findings of fact from evidence on record and adequate reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the learned trial court have been stated. The appellate court hearing a regular first appeal is a final court of fact as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arumugham Vs. Sundarambal [ : JT 1999 (4) SC 464]. No perversity in the findings of fact by the first appellate court can even remotely be made out. There is no other substantial question of law made out in the present appeal. Consequently, the second appeal is without force and the same is dismissed.