LAXMI KAUR Vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal filed by the appellant -plaintiff under Section 100 of CPC arises out of the judgment and decree dated 4/3/2005 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil First Appeal No. 13 of 2005, in which the Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 11/2/2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 1/2004 (270/89).

(2.) THE short facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the appellant -plaintiff had instituted the suit, seeking permanent injunction in respect of the land admeasuring 110'X105' situated at Bharatpur and had prayed that the respondents -defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff or interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit plot. According to the appellant -plaintiff, one Laxman Singh was the Khatedar of 45 bighas in Khasra No. 1892 (Chak No. 3) at Bharatpur, and the said Laxman Singh had executed an agreement to sell on 23/2/1982 in respect of the suit plot, in favour of the daughter of the plaintiff, who in turn made the oral agreement dated 15/8/1982 to sell the suit plot to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he was in possession of the suit plot since then and had also erected the small part of pastor. It was further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was staying on the said suit plot and was also tying the buffaloes, however, the respondents -the defendants were bent upon to dispossess the plaintiff from the said plot. The said suit was resisted by the respondents -defendants by filing the written -statement denying the allegations made in the plaint, and contending inter -alia that 5 bighas of 1892 belonged to the Urban Improvement Trust and the plaintiff had no khatedari rights over the suit plot. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the appellant -plaintiff against which the appeal is preferred by him, which also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 5/3/2005.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, and to the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, it appears that the Courts below, after having duly considered the evidence on record, had come to the finding that the appellant -plaintiff had failed to prove his legal right over the suit plot. It was also not duly proved by the appellant -plaintiff that he was in legal possession of the suit plot. There being concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, and the counsel for the appellant having failed to point out any illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Even otherwise, there is no question of law much less substantial questions of law involved in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.