Heard learned counsel for appellant.
The appellant by means of the present appeal has assailed the judgement and order dated 31.7.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mau in Original Suit No.73 of 2017, whereby he the has dismissed the suit of plaintiff-appellant, and the judgement and order dated 6.2.2020 passed by District Judge, Mau in Civil Appeal No.25 of 2019 to the extent it partly dismisses the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.
The suit has been instituted by the plaintiff-appellant against defendants-respondents claiming that he is the owner of 100 Kari of Plot No.1141 situated in village Sarai Lakhansi, Paragana and Tehsil Maunath Bhanjan, District Mau.
The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that 75 Kari land of Plot No.1141 was purchased by him by a registered sale deed, whereas on understanding with Sri Ramji Rai, he purchased 25 Kari of land of Plot No.1141, the sale consideration was paid, and the plaintiff-appellant is in possession over the entire 100 Kari of Plot No.1141.
The trial court vide judgement and order dated 31.7.2019 dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove his ownership over the land in dispute, and further recorded a finding that the plaintiff-appellant did not file any application to bring on record the sale deed in respect of land in dispute alleged to be owned by him.
The appellant-plaintiff, thereafter, preferred an appeal against the said judgement. On the basis of the sale deed in respect of 75 Kari land of Plot No.1141, the appellate court held the plaintiff-appellant to be the owner of 75 kari of plot no.1141. As regards the remaining 25 Kari of land, the appellate court recorded a finding that without any registered sale deed the appellant-plaintiff cannot be said to be the owner of remaining 25 Kari of plot no.1141 and accordingly, it decreed the suit to the extent of 75 Kari of Plot No.1141 while dismissed the suit to the extent of 25 Kari of Plot No.1141.
Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the appellate court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant in respect of 25 Kari, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that there was enough evidence on record which establishes that the sale consideration in respect of 25 Kari of Plot No.1141 has been paid, and accordingly the appellate court has erred in law in holding that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to establish his title over 25 Kari of Plot No.1141.
Be that as it may, it is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that sale consideration in respect of 25 Kari was paid, and the plaintiff-appellant continued to be in possession of the property of 25 Kari on the basis of understanding with Late Ram Niwas. As per the record of the case, no sale deed has been executed in respect of 25 Kari of Plot No.1141 in respect to which the appellate court has dismissed the suit.
Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the finding returned by the appellate court in respect of 25 Kari of Plot No.1141 that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to establish his title over the same is based on appreciation of evidence on record and the counsel for the appellant failed to show any perversity in the said finding, therefore, finding being finding of fact does not warrant interference by this Court under Section 100 of C.P.C.
Since, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, therefore, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 Anil K. Sharma