Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.@mdashThe Defendants are Appellants. Judgments and decrees of both the courts below have gone against them.
2. The Plaintiffs had filed title suit in the court of Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur, seeking declaration that they have right, title and possession over the suit land and that their possession be confirmed, The Plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree for permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendants from Interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs over the suit land.
3. The Plaintiffs'' case, in short, was that the original Defendant No. 1 was the wife of Defendant No. 2 and both were living together in the same house. Defendant No. 2 sold a piece of land, measuring 100'' X 80'' of Plot No. 16, appertaining to Khata No. 1 of Mouza Mango, to one Md. Badruddin. Said Badruddin, subsequently, constructed a house, consisting of three rooms over a portion of the land. Name of Badruddin was also recorded in the provisional survey record in 1964. New survey plot was numbered as Plot No. 325. Said Badruddin sold his land to one Abdul Hamid, measuring an area of 35'' X 180'' from east to west on the southern side, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 19th April, 1971. The purchaser Abdul Hamid came in possession. In exercise of his right of ownership, he, subsequently, sold the said land to the original Plaintiff. The land was resurveyed in the year 1971 and Plot No. 325 was recorded as new Survey Plot No. 1523 under Khata No. 1249. The said land of Plot No. 1523 is the suit land, which is fully described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The residential house and shops of the Defendants in Plot No. 1524 are situated just adjoining to Plot No. 1523. There is a compound wall between said two plots, running from east to west. The compound wall belongs to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants have got no right, title and interest over the suit plot, but the dependents falsely claimed that the boundary wall is standing over their land. The dispute had given rise to a proceeding u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure The Defendants had also filed an application u/s 90 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, Waking the Plaintiffs as parties, in the court of Revenue Officer, Jamshedpur. The Plaintiffs were not made parties in the said proceeding. Only Abdul Hamid was made party to the said proceeding, who had no longer any interest over the said plot. In the application u/s 90 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, the Defendants had claimed that his land of Plot No. 1524 has been wrongly included in the area of Plot No. 1523 and they prayed for correction of the record of right. On the said basis, it was claimed that the Plaintiffs have got right, title and possession over the suit land.
4. The Defendants contested the suit. In the written statement, the Defendants, inter alia, stated that the Defendant No. 2 had sold the piece of land, measuring 100'' X 180'' to Md. Badruddin, but denied that Badruddin had constructed three rooms and veranda on the southern portion of the land. It was stated that the record of right of 1964 was cancelled by the Government and a fresh survey and settlement operation was commenced in the year 1970-71. The final record was prepared in the year 1979. They have not admitted the transfer of land by Badruddin in favor of Abdul Hamid and by Abdul Hamid in favor of the Plaintiff-Ali Imam. The Defendants have denied that the Plaintiff was either the owner or he is in possession of the Schedule-A land. The Defendants also denied that the boundary wall belonged to the Plaintiffs. They have admitted that they have filed an application u/s 90 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, seeking correction in the final survey record. The Defendants emphatically stated that the land, measuring 100'' X 180'' sold to Badruddin by Defendant No. 2 did not include the suit land. Abdul Hamid and, subsequently, the Plaintiffs never came in possession of the same as purchaser and the Defendants prayed that the Plaintiffs'' suit be dismissed.
5. Learned Trial Court on thorough appraisal of the facts and evidences on record came to the considered conclusion that the Plaintiffs have got valid right title over the suit property and the Plaintiffs die In possession of the suit land. Learned Trial Court, thus, decreed the Plaintiffs suit.
6. The Defendants, thereafter, filed title appeal in the court of the District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. The appeal was finally heard and decided by the Additional District Judge-III, Jamshedpur.
7. Learned lower appellate court after due consideration of the evidences and material on record held that the Plaintiffs have been able to prove their right title over the suit property and they are in possession thereof. Learned lower appellate, thus, upheld the judgment and decree of learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
8. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellants, as sallied the impugned judgment on the ground that the facts and evidences appearing on record have not been properly appreciated and noticed by learned Trial Court. Both the courts below have failed to take into consideration the map of cadastral survey and have wrongly based their findings on the basis of survey record of 1964, which was subsequently revised in 1971 and on that basis learned Courts below arrived at wrong conclusion. The judgments of the courts below are erroneous and are liable to be set aside.
9. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the judgments and decrees of the learned courts below are based on proper appreciation of facts and evidences on record. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Lower Appellate Court have come to the concurrent finding of facts that the area on which the boundary wall is constructed belonged to the Plaintiffs. Concurrent finding of facts is binding on the second appellate court.
10. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I perused the judgments and decrees of the learned Trial Court as well as learned Lower Appellate Court. Learned Trial Court had thoroughly considered the facts and evidences and arrived at the conclusion that the Plaintiffs have got right, title and possession over the suit land. The findings of learned Trial Court are based on thorough scrutiny of the evidences adduced by the parties. Learned lower appellate court has also thoroughly dealt with the facts and evidences and has independently assessed the same. After elaborate discussion and consideration of the evidences and materials on record, learned Lower Appellate Court has concurred with the finding of facts recorded by the learned Trial Court. Concurrent finding of facts is binding on the second appellate court.
11. I, therefore, find no error or any ground made out giving rise to a substantial question of law to be framed and decided in this second appeal.
12. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
