Shishir Kumar, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. This is the Defendants'' second appeal arising out of Suit No. 371 of 1972, which was decreed by judgment and order dated 11.07.1979. The
Defendants filed an appeal. The appeal has been dismissed. Hence, the present second appeal has been filed.
3. The plaint case, as stated by the Plaintiffs, is that there is no concern regarding the Sehan and property belonging to the Plaintiffs and
Defendants. A map has been submitted with the plaint, in which the boundary has been shown. The Defendants forcibly wanted to interfere in the
possession of the property, hence the suit is being filed.
4. The Defendants filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint stating therein that the Plaintiffs have got no right to file the suit
and they have annexed a map with the written statement and have shown the house of the Plaintiffs as 1-2-3-4 and the disputed site has been
shown as 5-6-7-8. The Sehan of the Plaintiffs has also been shown as 7-7-1-4. It has been stated that towards north of the Sehan Plaintiffs have
got no concern. After abolition of Zamindari in 1951, they have become the owner of the property.
5. The trial court has framed various issues and one of the issue was whether the property shown in the map of the plaint of which nature has been
changed is liable for demolition and the original status, prior to the date of suit, is to be made. DW-1 Ram Awadh Singh has stated in his statement
that the wall is of soil and it is being in existence from the time of his forefathers. DW-2 Ram Gopal has also given a statement and has said that
towards west side of the wall it has been made with bricks and that has been constructed by the Defendants and south of the said wall is of soil.
But, from the perusal of the statements of these two D Ws, it is clear that DW-1 & 2 have given a contradictory statement. Further, DW-2 has
given a statement before the Court that there is a door towards south of the house of the Defendants, but from the statement given by DW-1, it is
clear that there is no door and from the report of the Advocate Commissioner, it is also clear that he has given a report that there is no wall.
6. After recording such findings, the trial court has held that from the statements of DW-1 & 2, it is clear that they are telling a lie and their
statements cannot be believed. Further, a finding has been recorded that in view of the Commissioner''s report the disputed room is not pucca in
nature, which is apparent from the statement of DW-2 and certain alteration has been done with the help of the police, therefore, it cannot be held
that there is any consent of the Plaintiffs.
7. After recording such findings, the trial court has decreed the suit directing the Defendants that they will vacate the property in dispute, mentioned
in the plaint as 13-14-19-21 and possession be handed over to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree filed
an appeal. The appellate court has also confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I see no justification to interfere being the fact that no substantial question of law is involved in
the present appeal and the findings recorded by the trial court are findings of fact.
9. The second appeal is hereby dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.