JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri Jamal Ali, learned counsel for the plaintiffs appellant, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent and perused the record. 2. The facts are that the plaintiff respondent filed Original Suit No. 355 of 1995, Gaus Mohammad versus Hanif and others in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banda on 20.7.1995 for dispossession of the defendants appellant from the property in dispute shown by letters E,F,G, H, C, I in the plaint map, injunction restraining the defendants from raising construction over the land shown by letters G,J, I D and mesne profits. Further relief sought by amendment was for mandatory injunction for removal of alleged construction made during the pendency of suit over the land in dispute shown by letters G,J, I D. 3. The plaintiff respondent alleged that he was bhumidhar of old plot No. 329/1 measuring 1 bigha 0.2 biswa i.e. .47 acre, which was recorded in the name of his father Mohammad Bux before consolidation proceedings and after his death the plaintiff Gaus Mohammad became owner of the land in question shown by letters A, B, C, D in the plaint map; that his father had constructed over 5 biswa Abadi of the said plot and entire plot was surrounded by boundary walls; that the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 14.5.1984 ordered that entire khata No. 76 was bhumidhari of the plaintiff; that the proceedings regarding mutation under Rule 109 of Consolidation of Holdings Rules were pending and that the plot in question was recorded as Abadi in revenue records. 4. During consolidation proceedings plot Nos. 329/1, 329/2, 330 and 332/1 measuring 1.25 acres were consolidated together into new plot No. 158 over which the plaintiff claims to have constructed a room in the year 1992 shown by letters E,F,G, H in the plaint map. It was also averred that in the year 1992 the property in dispute shown by letters E, F, I, C was given to defendant respondent No. 1 on licence which he denied to return the possession to the plaintiff and also gave threats for demolishing the property in dispute shown by letters G,J,I,D. 5. It was also averred that in the year 1992 the property in dispute shown by letters E, F, I, C was given to defendant respondent No. 1 on licence which he denied to return the possession to the plaintiff and also gave threats for demolishing the property in dispute shown by letters G,J,I,D. 5. Lastly it was averred that the defendants had collected material and were going to raise boundary walls shown by letters G,J,I, G, hence the possession of the defendants was illegal and they were entitled for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.20/- per day. 6. The defendants appellant contested the suit denying the allegations of the plaint. According to them, the plaintiff had no concern with the disputed land and that their house existed over part of plot No. 329 since before consolidation operation. The land in their possession and in dispute was not identifiable and that the cases of the plaintiff referred in the plaint were not binding upon the defendants as they were not parties to the suits. The case of the defendants appellant also was that the house shown by letters E,F,G,H was constructed much earlier and the property shown by letters E,F,I, C was his Sahan and that the plot had been entered in class 6 as Abadi land. It was alleged that the plaintiff in collusion with the Lekhpal and other revenue employees got the proceedings under Section 122 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and Rule 115C of the Rules decided in their favour and that the suit had been filed on false grounds. 7. The trial Court framed following issues on the basis of the pleading of the parties. 7. The trial Court framed following issues on the basis of the pleading of the parties. ^^1- D;k oknh fookfnr Hkwfe ftls okni= ds ekufp= esa cg:Q th] ts] vkbZ] Mh ls iznf’kZr fd;k x;k gS dk ekfyd dkfct gS\ 2- D;k oknh us fookfnr dejk izfroknh la[;k&1 dks vk;Zru jgus dks fn;k Fkk tSlk fd okni= dh dfUMdk 4 esa dfFkr fd;k x;k gS] ;fn gka rks izHkko\ 3- D;k oknh fookfnr dejk ,Q] th] ,p] vkbZ] dks izfroknhx.k ls [kkyh djkdj dCtk n[ky ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- D;k oknh] izfroknhx.k ds okn nk;j djus dh frfFk ls dCtk ikus dh frfFk rd eq0 20@& :i;s izfrfnu gtkZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 5- D;k nkok oknh dkyckf/kr gS\ 6- D;k okn dk ewY;kadu de fd;k x;k gS\ 7- D;k iznRr U;k; 'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\ 8- D;k izfroknhx.k oknh ls fof’k"V gtkZ ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ 9- oknh vU; fdl mi’ke dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 10- D;k izfroknhx.k }kjk nkSjku eqdnek fookfnr LFky th] ts- Mh] vkbZ] ij nhoky dk fuekZ.k dk;Z djk;k x;k gS ;fn gkWa rks izHkko\ 11- D;k fookfnr Hkwfe f’kuk[r ;ksX; ugha gS ;fn gkWa rks izHkko\** 8. The parties examined witnesses in support of their cases and also filed documentary evidence etc. 9. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.8.2008 decreed the suit partially for dispossession of the appellants from the property shown by letters E,F,G,H and Sahan shown by letters E,F,H,I for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.20/- per day. However, the suit was dismissed in respect of other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. 10. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.8.2008 in Original Suit No. 355 of 1995, the defendants appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2008, Hanif Bux and others versus Gaus Mohammad. Interim order was granted to them during the pendency of the appeal. However, the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.1.2010 by the lower appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.8.2008 passed by the trial Court. 11. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that this Second Appeal has been filed by which the relief has been sought for setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff respondent in toto with costs throughout. 12. 11. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that this Second Appeal has been filed by which the relief has been sought for setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff respondent in toto with costs throughout. 12. Sri Jamal Ali, learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the plot numbers of the plaintiff respondent relating to title are vague and misconceived; that the plaintiff pleaded that disputed property exists over plot No. 329/1 which was recorded in his father’s name and after his death he became sole bhumidhar whereas in plot No. 329/1 the name of Zainab Bibi daughter of Kallu resident of village Harha was also recorded vide order dated 26.5.1971 passed by J.O.(R) I, as co-bhumidhar with Mohd. Bux, the father of the plaintiff and that plot No. 329 consists of two plots viz plot Nos. 329/1 and 329/2; that plot No. 329/2 was recorded in the name of Hidayatullah hence, the plaintiff had to prove that the disputed property exists over plot No. 329/1 but he has utterly failed to prove it. 13. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the alleged exclusive title of the plaintiff over plot No. 329/1 is based on order dated 14.5.1984 of the Consolidation Officer which is said to be passed on compromise dated 27.4.1984 with Smt. Zainab Bibi but the plaintiff has not filed the copy of order dated 14.5.1984 and that the compromise dated 27.4.1984 is apparently a forged document which has been filed by an imposter as the recorded co-bhumidhar in khata No. 76 with plaintiff’s father is Zainab Bibi daughter of Kallu resident of village Kurrahi, Tehsil Naraini, District Banda whereas the alleged compromise is with Smt. Zainab Bibi wife of late Abdul Hafeez resident of village Kurrahi, Tehsil Baberu District Banda. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that it is admitted case of the plaintiff that plot No. 329/1 was merged with other plots and allotted new plot No. 158 which was recorded as Abadi, hence the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Consolidation of Holdings Rules were not applicable. The proceedings under Rule 109 of the C.H. Rules were not maintainable, therefore, recording the name of the plaintiff in plot No. 158 M area 0.47 acres in said proceeding is illegal. 15. The proceedings under Rule 109 of the C.H. Rules were not maintainable, therefore, recording the name of the plaintiff in plot No. 158 M area 0.47 acres in said proceeding is illegal. 15. It is lastly submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below that the title of the plaintiff over the disputed land is proved, is illegal and is based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence and the documents filed by the plaintiff do not make out the title of the plaintiff over the property in dispute. 16. He also submits that the findings recorded by the Courts below about the title of the plaintiff respondent over the disputed land are incorrect, perverse and has materially prejudice the case of the plaintiff as the plaintiff was neither recorded as bhumidhar in the revenue records and nor he was in possession of the land in dispute. It is also submitted that the Courts below have misread the evidence and issue Nos. 2, 4 and 11 have not been considered by the Courts below, hence the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are giving rise to the substantial questions of law framed in the memo of appeal. 17. In support of his above submissions , learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon paragraph 15 of the judgment rendered in the case of Santosh Hazari versus Purushottam Tiwari (deceased) By LRs., (2001) 3 SCC-179 . Paragraph 15 of the judgment reads thus : “15. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that it has extensively dealt with the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties for deciding the issues on which the parties went to trial. It also found that in support of his plea of adverse possession on the disputed land, the defendant did not produce any documentary evidence while the oral evidence adduced by the defendant was conflicting in nature and hence unworthy of reliance. The first appellate Court has, in a very cryptic manner, reversed the finding on question of possession and dispossession as alleged by the plaintiff as also on the question of adverse possession as pleaded by the defendant. The appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial Court. The first appellate Court has, in a very cryptic manner, reversed the finding on question of possession and dispossession as alleged by the plaintiff as also on the question of adverse possession as pleaded by the defendant. The appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial Court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons on all the issues arising alongwith the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate Court. The task of an appellate Court affirming the findings of the trial Court is an easier one. The appellate Court agreeing with the view of the trial Court need not restate the effect of the evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court decision of which is under appeal would ordinarily suffice (see Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary). We would, however, like to sound a note of caution. Expression of general agreement with the findings recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage adopted by the appellate Court for shirking the duty cast on it. While writing a judgment of reversal the appellate Court must remain conscious of two principles. Firstly the findings of fact based on conflicting evidence arrived at by the trial Court must weigh with the appellate Court, moreso when the findings are based on oral evidence recorded by the same Presiding Judge who authors the judgment. This certainly does not mean that when an appeal lies on facts, the appellate Court is not competent to reverse a finding of fact arrived at by the trial Judge. As a matter of law if the appraisal of the evidence by the trial Court suffers from a material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or on conjectures and surmises, the appellate Court is entitled to interfere with the finding of fact. (See Madhusudan Das v. Narayanibai). As a matter of law if the appraisal of the evidence by the trial Court suffers from a material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or on conjectures and surmises, the appellate Court is entitled to interfere with the finding of fact. (See Madhusudan Das v. Narayanibai). The rule is and it is nothing more than a rule of practice- that when there is conflict of oral evidence of the parties on any matter in issue and the decision hinges upon the credibility of witnesses then unless there is some special feature about the evidence of a particular witness which has escaped the trial Judge’s notice or there is sufficient balance or improbability to displace his opinion as to where the credibility lie the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of the trial Judge on a question of fact. (See Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh). Secondly, while reversing a finding of fact the appellate Court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial Court and then assigned its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the Court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate Court had discharged the duty expected of it. We need only remind the first appellate Courts of the additional obligation cast on them by the scheme of the present. Section 100 substituted in the Code. The first appellate Court continues, as before, to be a final Court of facts; pure findings of fact remain immune from challenge before the High Court in second appeal. Now the first appellate Court is also a final Court of law in the sense that its decision on a question of law even if erroneous may not be vulnerable before the High Court in second appeal because the jurisdiction of the High Court has now ceased to be available to correct the errors of law or the erroneous findings of the first appellate Court even on questions of law unless such question of law be a substantial one.” 18. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the suit was filed for permanent injunction and that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the defendants appellant. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the suit was filed for permanent injunction and that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the defendants appellant. He has relied upon the case reported in AIR 1998, MP-73, Smt. Sarswati Devi versus Krishna Ram Baldeo Bank Ltd. and another, wherein it has been held that the Court will not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below unless there is an illegality or mistake apparent on the face of record. He further submits that the defendants appellants have failed to show any substantial question of law which may be debatable and has not been settled in law. As regards paragraph 15 of the judgment rendered in the case of Santosh Hazari (supra) is concerned, it is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the facts and circumstances of the case in which the judgment was given was different. He submits that in that case the question before the Apex Court was regarding possession on the basis of adverse possession. He submits that the defendants appellants were owners and in possession of the plot in dispute for the last 70-80 years i.e. from before Zamindari Abolition. 19. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the judgments and decrees of the Courts below as well as the record it is apparent that issue Nos. 2 and 4 have been dealt with together in details by the trial Court as well as appellate Court. The Court below has held that the respondent has failed to prove his relationship over the disputed room and land as such the plaintiff is entitled to get vacant possession of the room and land from the respondent. The relevant extract of findings of the trial Court in respect of issue Nos. The Court below has held that the respondent has failed to prove his relationship over the disputed room and land as such the plaintiff is entitled to get vacant possession of the room and land from the respondent. The relevant extract of findings of the trial Court in respect of issue Nos. 2 and 4 are as under : ^^i=koyh ij miyC/k dkxt la[;k&87 x 1 ds ifj’khyu ls oknh vf/koDrk ds rdksZa esa cy izrhr gksrk gSA ijUrq lkFk gh ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd izfroknhx.k fookfnr dejs ,oa Hkwfe ij vius LoRo fl) ugha dj lds gSa vkSj ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa mudh vlQyrk ds vk/kkj ij oknh i{k dk ;g dFku vf/klEHkko ,oa izcy gksrk gS fd oknh us vk;Zru jgus ds fy, fookfnr dejk o lgu izfroknh la[;k&1 dks iznku fd;k FkkA pwWafd oknh us fookfnr dejk izfroknhx.k ls [kkyh djus ds fy, dgk gS] ijUrq og [kkyh djus ls bUdkj dj jgs gSa blfy, fookfnr dejk ,oa lgu dh Hkwfe dk LokfeRo gksus vk;Zru fn;s ykbZlsUl ds fujLr dj fn;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij og mls [kkyh djk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA rnkuqlkj okn fcUnq la[;k&2 o 3 ldkjkRed :i ls fu.khZr fd;s tkrs gSaA fuLrkj.k okn fcUnq la[;k&4%& ;g okn fcUnq bl vk’k; dk fojfpr fd;k x;k gS fd D;k oknh izfroknhx.k ls okn nk;j djus dh frfFk ls dCtk ikus dh frfFk rd eq0 20@& :i;s izfrfnu gtkZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ oknh vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd fookfnr dejk o lgu ij izfroknhx.k us dCtk n[ky uktk;t gS vkSj izfroknhx.k dCtk cstk enk[kyr ds 20@& :i;s izfrfnu dh nj ls gtkZ izkIr djus dk oknh vf/kdkjh gSA izfroknhx.k }kjk mDr rF; dks vLohdkj fd;k x;k gSA okn fcUnq la[;k&1 o 2 o 3 esa fn;s x;s fu"d"kZ ds vuqlkj fookfnr dejs ,oa lgu Hkwfe ij oknh dk LoRo fl) gS vkSj oknh }kjk dCtk okil ekaxus ij izfroknhx.k }kjk bUdkj fd;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij izfroknhx.k dk dCtk vukf/kÑr gks tkrk gS vkSj oknh us tfj;s eq[; ijh{kk 'kiFk&i= vius bl vfHkdFku dks fl) fd;k gS vkSj bl vks0 ih0 ua0 18% fcUnq ij izfroknh i{k dh vksj ls oknh ls dksbZ izfrijh{kk ugha dh x;h A vr% vukf/kÑr dCts ds vk/kkj ij oknh gtkZuk bLrseky ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA rnkuqlkj ;g okn fcUnq ldkjkRed :i ls oknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA** 20. In so far as issue No. 4 is concerned, the Court below has held that according to the decision on issue Nos. 1,2 and 3, the possession of the defendants appellants is illegal and as such the plaintiffs are entitled to get compensation. 21. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendants appellants that the land in dispute is not identifiable and as such it cannot be said that they are trespassers and in an illegal possession of the room and Sahan. In this regard the trial Court has decided issue No. 1 with issue No. 11. 21. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendants appellants that the land in dispute is not identifiable and as such it cannot be said that they are trespassers and in an illegal possession of the room and Sahan. In this regard the trial Court has decided issue No. 1 with issue No. 11. The relevant extract of findings are thus : **fuLrkj.k okn fcUnq la[;k&1 ,oa 11 % &&&&&&izfroknh us vius edku dks xkVk la[;k%329 ij cuk gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij Hkh mudk LokfeRo fl) ugha gksrk gS] D;ksfad xkVk la[;k &329 dk lEiw.kZ cUnskcLrh jdck oknh ,oa fgnk;r mYyk ds uke ntZ jgk gSA tgkWa rd fookfnr Hkwfe ds f’kuk[r ;ksX; gksus dk iz’u gS rks ;g Li"V gS fd oknh us vius okni= esa fookfnr Hkwfe dk ekufp= izLrqr fd;k gS] ftlesa pkSgn~nh ,oa ukisa iznf’kZr dh x;h gSA Lo;e~ izfroknhx.kds lkf{k;ksa us izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku fookfnr Hkwfe dh pkSgn~nh dks Lohdkj fd;k gS blfy, fookfnr Hkwfe f’kuk[r ;ksX; ugha gksus ds lEcU/k esa fd;k x;k dFku izfroknhx.k vlR; gSA &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& i=koyh ij miyC/k dkxt la[;k%9x 1 lR; izfrfyfi tksr pdcUnh vkdkj i= 2d ds ifj’khyu ls ;g Li"V gS fd xkVk la[;k% 329@1 jdck ,d ch?kk 2 fcLok egen iq= egewn ,oe tSuc chch nq[rj dYyw ds uke ntZ vfHkys[k gS vkSj LrEHk la[;k&16 esa vkcknh pkgjnhokjh vafdr gS rFkk fooj.k ds vU; dkye esa bl vk’k; dh izfof"V vafdr gS fd /kkjk&4 ds izdk’ku ds mijkUr pkgjnhokjh cuk;h x;h gSA bl vfHkys[k ds ifj’khyu ls ;g Hkh fofnr gksrk gS fd xkVk la[;k&329@2 jdck 5 fcLok ij fgnk;r mYyk iq= eqU’kh dh vkcknh ntZ gSA dkxgt la[;k% 55x1 lR; izfrfyfi vkdj&i= 11 ds ifj’khyu ls ;g Li"V gS fd [kkrk la[;k&78 xkVk la[;k%329@1jdck 0-47 ,dM+ egen iq= egewn ,oe~ tSuc chch nq[rj dYyw ds uke ntZ vfHkys[k gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k dkxt la[;k&56x1 lR; izfrfyfi vkdj&i= 23 ds ifj’khyu ls ;g Li"V gS fd xkVk la[;k &329@1 jdck ,d ch?kk nks fcLok vkcknh oxZ &6 esa ntZ fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj mldk yxku [kkfjt fd;k x;k FkkA oknh dk vxzrj ;g Hkh dFku gS fd tSuc chch us pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds le{k ,d lfU/k i= nkf[ky fd;k Fkk] ftlds vk/kkj ij xkVk la[;k 329@1 ds lEiw.kZ Hkwfe oknh ds firk ds uke rugk ntZ gq;h FkhA i=koyh ij miyC/k dkxt vks0 ih0 ua010 la[;k% 91x1 lR; izfrfyfi lfUèk i= fnukad 27&4&84 ds ifj’khyu ls ;g Li"V izrhr gksrk gS fd eksgEen c['k ,oa tSuc chch ds eè; lfU/k i= fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k Fkk A i=koyh ij miyCèk dkxt la[;k&53x1 lR; izfrfyfi [krkSuh 404 Qlyh ds ifj’khyu ls ;g Li"V gS fd mDr vfHkys[k esa xkVk la[;k%158 fe0tq0 jdCkk 0-47 ,dM+ ds lUnHkZ esa oknh xkSl eksgEen iq= eksgEen c[l dk uke rugk ntZ fd;s tkus dk vkns’k vafdr gSA blfy, bl lUnHkZ esa oknh vf/koDrk ds rdksZ esa cy izrhr gksrk gSA izfroknhx.k dk dFku gS fd mudk fookfnr edku xkVk la[;k % 329 ij pdcUnh fdz;kvksa ds iwoZ dk cuk gqvk gS] ftlesa pdcUnh mijkUr u;k uEcj&158 jdck 1-25 ,dM+ dk;e fd;k x;k gSA izfroknhx.k us vius izfrokn i= dks /kkjk &4 esa bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd xkVk la[;k %158 ds iqjkus uEcj 329@1 jdck 0-47 ,dM+] 329@1 jdck 0-11 ,dM+] 330 jdck 0-51 ,dM{k] 332@1 jdck 0-16 ,dM+ vFkkZr dqy 1-25 ,dM+ 'kkfey gSA izfroknhx.k dk dFku gS fd mDr Hkwfe ij mudk edku vlkZ iwoZ ls cuk gqvk gS vkSj bl lEcU/k esa izfroknh lk{kh Mh0MCyw0&1 us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd fookfnr edku lgu iq’rSuh gS] ftl ij og yksx jg jgs gSA bl ij mudk dCtk tehUnkjh fouk’k vf/k0ds igys ls gSA vlkZ 70&80 lky ls gSA ;g edku mlds firk dk cuok;k gqvk gSA loZ izFke ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd izfroknhx.k us fookfnr Hkwfe ,oa edku dks xkVk la[;k 329 ij fLFkr gksuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq izfroknhx.k }kjk xkVk la[;k 329 ij vius LoRo ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA tcfd oknh i{k}kjk izLrqr vfHkys[kksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd xkVk la[;k 329@1 jdck ,d ch?kk nks fcLok oknh ds uke vkcknh [kkrs esa ntZ Fkk ,oa 329@2 jdck 5 foLok fgnk;rmYyk iq= eqa’kh ds uke vkcknh [kkrs esa ntZ FkkAbl izdkj 329 dk lEiw.kZ jdck ,d ch?kk 7 fcLok oknh ,ao fgnk;r mYyk d suke vfHkys[kksa esa ntZ jgk gS vkSj Hkwfe la[;k 329 dks izfroknhx.k dk fdlh izdkj dk LoRo ifjyf{kr ugha gksrk gSA izfroknhx.k dh ;g LohdkjksfDr gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe ,oa edku xkVk la[;k&329 ij fLFkr gS ftl ij mudk edku tehUnkjh fouk’k ds iwoZ ls vlkZ 70&80 lky ls cuk gqvk gS tks fd muds firk us cuok;k FkkA vks0 ih0 ua0 11% izfroknhx.k dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd mDr edku ds lEcU/k esa mUgksaus rglhynkj ujSuh }kjk 49d dh uksfVl vUrxZr /kkjk& 122 ch tehankjh fouk’k vf/kfu;e iznku dh x;h Fkh] ftlesa mugsa fookfnr edku dk Lokeh ,oe~ dCtsnkj ekuk x;k Fkk vkSj mlds vk/kkj ij uksfVl dks izfrfyfi fu.kZ; okn la[;k %4@104@335 /kkjk&122 ch tehUnkjh fouk’k xkao lHkk cuke guhQ c[l U;k;ky; vflLVsUV dysDVj ÁFke Js.kh@rglhynkj ujSuh fnukafdr 9&5&94 ds ifj’khyu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izfroknh guhQ c[l dks 49d dh uksfVl iznku dh x;h Fkh] ftlesa rRdkyhu rglhynkj }kjk bl vk’k; dk vfHker O;Dr fd;k x;k Fkk fd vkcknh dkQh iqjkuh cuh gq;h gSA vkcknh dk ekeyk gSA bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ds ckgj dh fo"k; oLrq gSA mHk; i{kksa ds xokgksa ds c;kukr ls Li"V gS fd vkjkth futkbZ esa pdcUnh iwoZ ls vkcknh FkhA bl lgu dk iqjkuk gksuk lcus Lohdkj fd;k fdUrq izfroknh ds vfrfjDr xokgh }kjk edku fdldk gS ugha crk;k x;kA edku ds LokfeRo dk fofu’p; djus dk {ks=kfèkdkj bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr ugha gSA vr% tkjh uksfVl okil yh tkrh gSA dkxt la[;k 29x1 izekf.kr izfr vkns’k ftykf/kdkjh]ckank fuxjkuh la[;k&19 ljdkj cuke guhQ c[l fnukafdr 12&8&96 ds ifj’khyu ls ;g LIk"V gS fd ftykf/kdkjh@dysDVj }kjk rglhynkj ujSuh ds vkns’k fnukafdr 8&5&94 dks iq"V fd;k x;k] ijUrq mijksDr nksuksa vfHkys[kksa ds ifj’khyu ls ;g dnkfi izdV ugha gksrk gS fd izfroknhx.k fookfnr Hkwfe ds LokRokf/kdkjh gS] ijUrq ;g vo’; gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe@edku ij iqjkuh vkcknh ik;h x;h ,oe~ izfroknhx.k dk dCtk ik;k x;k vkSj Lo;e~ oknh us Hkh fookfnr Hkwfe ij izfroknh dks dCtk fn;s tkus dk vfHkdFku fd;k gSA lk{kh Mh0 MCyw0&1 guhQ c[l us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa bl vk’k; dk dFku fd;k gS fd fookfnr edku o lgu mudk iq’rSuh vks0 ih0 ua0 12% gS tks muds firk dk cuok;k Fkk vkSj pdcUnh iwoZ tehUnkjh fouk’k vf/k0 ds igys ls vlkZ 70 lky igys ls gS] ijUrq izfrijh{kk esa bl lk{kh us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd ;g tehu mlus fdlh ls [kjhnh ugha Fkh vkSj u gh mlus iV~Vk fy;k FkkA og ugha crk ldrk fd tehu fdldh Fkh A lk{kh Mh0 MCyw0&2 vCnqy [kkfyd us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa fookfnr edku ,ao lgu dk Lokeh izfroknh dks gksuk dgk gSAMh0 MCyw0&3 esa viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa fookfnr edku ,oa lgu dk Lokeh guhQ c[l izfroknh dk gksuk dgk gS A ;fn izfroknhx.k ds lkf{k;ksa ds dFkuksa ij fo’okl fd;k tk;s rks muds dFkukuqlkj fookfnr edku ,oa lgu xkVk la[;k&329 ij fLFkr gS vkSj ml ij mudk edku tehUnkjh fouk’k ds iwoZ ls vlkZ 70&80 lky ls cuk gqvk gS tks fd muds firk dk cuk;k gqvk gSA ;gkWa ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd xkVk la[;k 329 ds lEcU/k esa izfroknhx.k LoRo fo"k;d vfHkys[k izLrqr ugha dj lds gSA tgkWa rd 70&80 lky ls izfroknhx.k dk edku cuk gksus dk rdZ dk iz’u gS rks ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd i=koyh ij miyC/k dkxt la[;k 9x1 lR; izfrfyfi vkdkj&i= 2d ds ifj’khyu ls ;g LIk"V gS fd xkVk la[;k%329@1 jdck ,d ch?kk nks foLok ds lEcU/k esa bl vk’k; dh fVIi.kh vfHkys[k ij vafdr gS fd /kkjk&4 ds izdk’ku ds mijkUr pkgjnhokjh cuk;h x;h gSA dkxt la[;k 79x 2 ,oa 90x1 izekf.kr izfr vkns’k rglhynkj ujSuh fnukafdr 25&11&76 ds ifj’khyu ls ;g Li"V gS fd tSuc chch ,oa eksgEen ds ekeys esa /kkjk&145 tk0 QkS0 ds vUrxZr dh x;h dk;Zokgh ls xkVk la[;k 329 jdck ,d ch?kk nks fcLok ij fLFkr vly dks dqdZ djus dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA dkxt la[;k&93d1 yxk;r 97d1 ds ipkZ vkccklh lhap ds ifj’khyu ls ;g Li”V gS fd xkVk la[;k 329 ds d`f"k ;ksX; Hkwfe jgs gksus ds rF; dks cy iznku djrk gS blfy, izfroknhx.k ds ;g dFku] fd fookfnr Hkwfe ij vlkZ 70&80 lky ls mudk edku cuk gqvk gS] cyghu izrhr gksrk gSA vxzrj ;g Hkh vks0 ih0 ua0 13% mYys[kuh; gS fd izfroknhx.k us vius izfrokn i= dh /kkjk&7 esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd ;g edku izfroknhx.k us Lo;a cuok;k gS tcfd izfroknh i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr ekSf[kd lkf{k;ksa }kjk mDr edku dks izfroknh ds firk }kjk cuok;s tkuk dgkx;k gS tks fd ijLijvUrj fojks/kh gS blfy, bl lEcU/k esa eSa izfroknh i{k ds rdksZ esa cy ugha ikrk gWwaA mHk;i{kh; rdksZ ls LohÑr rF; gS fd xkVk la[;k%329@1 dk pdcUnh mijkUr u;k uEcj xkVk la[;k&158 gqvkA i=koyh ij miyC/k dkxt la[;k% 54x1 lR; izfrfyfi vkdkj i= 41 ds ifj’khyu ls Hkh mDr rF; Li"V gS fd xkVk la[;k &158 jdck 1-40 ,dM+ ds iqjkus uEcjku xkVk la[;k%329 jdck 0-58 ,dM+] 330 jdck 0-51 ,dM+] 329@1 jdck 0-16 ,dM+] 332@2 jdck 0-15 ,dM+ jgk gSA izfroknhx.k dk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe f’kuk[r ;ksX; ugha gS] D;ksafd pdcUnh mijkUr fufeZr vkcknh xkVk la[;k% 158 dk jdck dkQh vf/kd gS vkSj ,sls esa oknh dk vfHkdfFkr 198 oxZ xkVk dk fookfnr LFky igpku ;ksX; ugha gSa bl fcUnq ij loZizFke ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd izfroknhx.k us fookfnr edku o lgu ls xkVk la[;k&329 ij fLFkr gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr dkxt la[;k &30x1 izekf.kr izfrfu.kZ; okn la[;k&4@104@335 /kkjk& 115lh @122lh tehUnkjh fouk’k vf/k0 U;k;ky; rglhynkj ujSuh fnukafdr 9&5&94 ds ifj’khyu ls ;g Li"V gS fd xkVk la[;k &158 dh 20 fM0 Hkwfe vFkkZr 0-081 gs0 Hkwfe dk fookn FkkA pwwWafd xkVk la[;k &329 dk dqy jdck ,d ch?kk lkr foLok Fkk] ftlesa ls xkVk la[;k&329 1 jdck ,d ch?kk nks foLok oknh ds uke rFkk329@2 jdck 5 foLok fgnk;r mYyk ds uke ntZ Fkk blfy, oknh vf/koDrk ds bl rdZ esa cy izrhr gksrk gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe oknh ds fgLls dh Hkwfe Fkh u fd fgnk;r mYyk okys fgLls dh Hkwfe vxzlj ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd oknh us vius okni= esa fookfnr Hkwfe iwjc] if’pe 12 xkBk ,oa mRrj&nf{k.k 18 xkBk gSA fookfnr vks0 ih0 ua0 % Hkwfe ds iwjc xSj futkbZ tehu oknh] if’pe jkLrk mRrj dfczLrku ,oa nf{k.k [ksr fgnk;r mYyk o r;c fLFkr gksuk dgk x;k gSAlk{kh ih0 MCyw0&1 us vius izfrijh{kk esa mDr pkSgn~nh ds lEcU/k esa Li"V dFku fd;s gSA lk{kh ih0 MCyw0&2 dkfle vyh us Hkh viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa fookfnr Hkwfe dh pkSgn~nh dks lkfcr fd;k gSA;|fi bl lk{kh us izfrijh{kk esa fookfnr dejs dh yEckbZ] pkSM+kbZ ds lEcU/k esa vufHkKrk nf’kZr dh gS] ijUrq bl lEcU/k esa mlds fd;s x;s vU; dFku fo’oluh; gSA lkFk gh ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd lk{kh Mh0 MCyw0&1 guhQ c['k us viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g dFku fd;k gS >xM+s okyh tehu ds iwjc fugk;r mYYkk dk ckx gSA if’pe esa jkLrk fQj rkfgj vyh o r;~;c vyh ds edku gsA mRrj esa dfczLrku gSA nf{k.k esa fgnk;r mYyk o r;~;c vyh dk [ksr gSA lk{kh Mh0 MCyw0&2 vCnqy [kkfyd us Hkh viuh izfrijh{kk esa fookfnr edku o lgu dh pkSgn~nh dks v{kj’k% Lohdkj fd;k gSa A lk{kh Mh0 MCyw0&3 dUtw [kkWa us Hkh viuh izfrijh{kk esa fookfnr Hkwfe dh mijksDr of.kZr pkSgn~nh dks Lohdkj fd;k gSA pwWafd Lo;e~ izfroknh i{k ds lkf{k;ksa }kjk oknh }kjk nf’kZr pkSgn~nh dks Lohdkj fd;k gS blfy, fookfnr Hkwfe ds f’kuk[r ;ksX; ugha gksus ds lEcU/k esa mudk dFku cyghu izrhr gksrk gSA bl izdkj mijkSDr lEiw.kZ fo’ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij ;g Li"V gS fd oknh fookfnr Hkwfe ij vius LoRo dks rqyukREkd :i ls lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k lQy jgk gSA tgkWa rd fookfnr Hkwfe ij v/;klu dk iz’u gS fd dks Lo;e~ oknh us gh vius okni= esa bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS mlus fookfnr edku izfroknhx.k dks vk;Zru jgus ds fy, fn;k Fkk vkSj mlds mijkUr mlds dqN Hkkx ij izfroknhx.k }kjk tcju dCtk djds fuekZ.k dj fy;k x;k gS blfy, fookfnr edku o lgu ij izfroknhx.k dk v/;klu vfookfnr gS A lkFk gh ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe ds f’kuk[r ;ksX; ugha gksus lEcU/k esa izfroknhx.k ds vk{ksi rdZlaxr ugha gSaA rnkuqlkj okn fcUnq la[;k&1 vks0 ih0 ua0 15% LokfeRo ds lEcU/k esa oknh ds Ik{k esa vkaf’kd ldkjkRed :i ls ,oe~ v/;klu ds lEcU/k esa udkjkRed :i ls rFkk okn fcUnq la[;k&11 udkjkREd :i ls fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA** 22. In so far as illegal possession of the room and Sahan is concerned, suffice it to say that the witnesses of the defendants appellant have confirmed the boundary walls of the land in dispute and as such the findings of the Courts below that the land is identifiable on the basis of oral and documentary evidence needs no interference. Both the Courts below have dealt with the issues which are alleged to have not been considered by the Courts below. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. 23. The lower appellate Court has also discussed the aforesaid findings of the trial Court in its judgment and has affirmed thus : **tgkWaa rd fookfnr Hkwfe@edku ij izfroknhx.k ds vk;Zru mi;ksx dk iz’u gS] bl lEcU/k esa oknh us vius okni= esa ;g Li"V dFku fd;k gS fd mlus fookfnr edku] izfroknhx.k dks vk;Zru jgus ds fy, fn;k Fkk vkSj mlds mijkUr izfroknhx.k }kjk fookfnr Hkwfe ds dqN Hkkx ij tcju fuekZ.k dj fy;k x;kA izfroknhx.k@ vks0 ih0 ua0 15%& vihykFkhZ dks viuk LoRo fl) djus ds fy, oknh ls csgrj LoRo lkfcr djuk Fkk fdUrq og ,salk djus esa foQy jgk gS] tcfd oknh] izfroknhx.k dh rqyuk esa vius okni= esa of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa dks lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa voj U;k;ky;k }kjk ikfjr iz’uxr fu.kZ;kns’k mfpr gS] blesa fdlh gLr{ksi dh vko’;drk ugha gSA vihy cyghu gS] vkSj fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA vkns’k vihykFkhZx.k dh vihy fujLr dh tkrh gS rFkk voj U;k;ky; ds iz’uxr fu.kZ;kns’k fnukafdr 28&8&08 o fMdzh fnukad 9&9&08 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA i=koyh vfoyEc voj U;k;ky; dks Hksth tkosA fnukad% 30&1&10 gLrk0 vi0 30@1@10 ¼ih0 ,u0 feJ½ vij ftyk tt] dksVZ ua0 3] ckWankA 24. In so far as the case of Santosh Hazari (supra) referred by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, it is to be noted that the defendant in that case had not produced any documentary evidence in support of his plea of adverse possession and that the oral evidence adduced by him was conflicting in nature and not worthy of reliance. The Apex Court has also found that the first appellate Court has, in a very cryptic manner reversed the finding on question of possession and dispossession. The Apex Court has also found that the first appellate Court has, in a very cryptic manner reversed the finding on question of possession and dispossession. Admittedly that being the case of adverse possession, the judgment was rendered in a different set of circumstances. In the present case, the first appellate Court has not passed any improper order to give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments of the Courts below display conscious application of mind and recording of findings of fact supported by reasons on all issues and contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the Courts below have carried out their function correctly. 25. For all the reasons stated above, no substantial question of law as formulated by the learned counsel for the appellants in the present second appeal arises. 26. The second appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ————