CSA/247/1995 of RANGI LAL Vs PRAHALAD and ORS on 20 December 2005

JUDGMENT

Rangi Lal and others.

vs.

Prahlad Rai and another.

S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.247/1995UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST THEJUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.8.1995PASSED BYSHRIM.D.GOSWAMI,ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NOHAR INAPPEAL NO.30/1992.

DATE OF JUDGMENT

::: 20.12.2005

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.

Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, for the appellants.

Mr. RK Purohit for Mr.R.Mehta, for the respondents.

- - - - -

BY THE COURT:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The plaintiff filed a suit for possession andinjunction on the basis of allegations that the suitproperty was belonging to plaintiff's grand father Maidutt@ Maidas and a patta was issued in their favour about 109

years ago in Samwat Year 1937. The defendant contested thesuit by saying that the plaintiff is not the grandson ofsaid Maidutt. The trial court decreed the suit of theplaintiff by judgment and decree dated 22.10.1992. Thefirst appellate court while deciding the issue no.1 heldthat the plaintiff failed to prove that he is grandson ofMaidutt. The first appellate court for this consideredpatta Exhibit-A/1 and patta Exhibit-A/4 issued by MunicipalBoard, gift deed Exhibit-A/5 and also considered the saledeed Exhibit-A/3 which was executed in the year 1940 and itcontained a fact that Maidutt died issueless.

In view of the above facts, the finding of factrecorded by the first appellate court is based ondocumentary evidence about the fact that the plaintifffailed to prove that he is grandson of Maidutt. A barereading of the judgment of the trial court reveals that thetrial court has not examined this aspect of the matter. Inview of the above finding of fact, the first appellatecourt was right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in theappeal. No substantial question of law is involved in thisappeal, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed,hence, dismissed.

S.Phophaliya

(PRAKASH TATIA), J.