JUDGMENT : Heard on admission. 2. This appeal at the instance of plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th July, 2006, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.73 A/2006 by 6th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rewa, affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2004 passed in Civil Suit No.159 A/2000 by First Additional Civil Judge Class-I, Rewa. 3. Plaintiff brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra No.533 admeasuring 0.62 acres (old Khasra No.405) situated in village Laua @ Laxmanpur Tehsil Huzur District Rewa, on the ground that his father having been entered as the lessee by the then Ilakedar vide lease deed executed in the 1941 had acquired the Bhumi Swami right thereover and thealienation thereof by the defendants no.1 to 4 vide sale deed dated 15.12.1992 in favour of defendant No.5 and a dispossession of appellant/plaintiff by defendant No.5 from the suit property in the year 1994, is illegal. 4. Defendants denied the plaintiff allegation as also the contentions that the plaintiff's father had acquired the Bhumiswami right over the property. Respective parties led their evidence. 5. The trial Court on a finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish execution of lease deed in favour of his father in the year 1941 non suited the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2004. 6. Respective parties led their evidence. 5. The trial Court on a finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish execution of lease deed in favour of his father in the year 1941 non suited the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2004. 6. The trial Court recorded the specific finding to the effect that the plaintiff has failed to establish the execution of lease deed by the then Ilakedar in favour of his father in paragraph 13 of the judgment- ''13 - oknh dh vksj ls lu~ 1974 ds vf/kdkj vfHkys[k dh tks izekf.kr izfrfyfi iz0ih0&A tks nks iUuksa esa izLrqr dh xbZ gS] esa oknh ds firk ds uke oknxzLr Hkwfe dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr iz0 ih0&1 ds rhljs iUUks esa oknxzLr Hkwfe losZ dz0 533] 534 ,oa 535] ftuds iqjkus uEcj dz0 dze'k% 405@405@5 vkSj 405@3 dks ds'ko izlkn ds LokfeRo dh gksuk dkye ua0 6 esa n'kkZ;k x;k gS] tcfd oknh dk Lo;a dk vfHkopu gS fd losZ dz0&534] 535 dk Lokeh oknh dz0&2 Fkk] ftldks okn esa oknh us nkos ls foyksfir dj fn;kA vr% mDr rhljh izfr ls oknxzLr Hkwfe ij izfroknh dk gh dCtk o Loa; gksuk izekf.kr gksrk gS oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr [kljs dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi ckor~ 1997&88 yxk;r 1991&92 esa okn xzLr HkwfelosZ dz0 535 jdok 0-59 ,dM dks ds'ko izlkn ds dCts dh gksuk n'kkZ;k x;k gSA oknh dh gh vksj ls izLrqr okf"kZd [ksrkSuh tekcUnh lu~ 1958&59 iz0ih0&3 esa oknxzLr lEifRr losZ dz0 &405 ds lEiw.kZ jdok 1-07 ,dM dks bZ'ojh izlkn ds LokfeRo o dCts dh gksuk izekf.kr gksrk gS A vRk% oknh ds gh nLrkostksa ls bl ckr dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd tehankjh lekfIr ds iwoZ bZ'ojh izlkn dk oknxzLr Hkwfe ij dCtk Fkk A pwafd oknh dk ;g vfHkopu gh gS fd bZ'ojh izlkn dks lu~ 1941 ds iwoZ tehankjh }kjk oknxzLr Hkwfe iV~Vs ij nh xbZ Fkh vkSj og iV~Vk fujLr gksuk izekf.kr ugha dj ik;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bZ'ojh izlkn dk oknxzLr Hkwfe dks iV~Vs ij izkIr djuk 1941 ds iwoZ ls ysdj e0iz0 Hkw&jktLo lafgrk ds ykxw gksus rd oknxzLr Hkwfe ij bZ'ojh izlkn dk dCtk gksuk izekf.kr gksrk gS] ftlds dkj.k lafgrk ykxw gksus ds i'pkr~ bZ'ojh izlkn mDr Hkwfe dk Lokeh gks x;kA oknh o mlds firk dk mDr vof/k dk oknxzLr Hkwfe ij dCtk gksuk izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa lu~ 1959 esa lafgrk ykxw gksus ds i'pkr~ og oknxzLr Hkwfe dk Lokeh ugha gqvk] ftlds dkj.k lu~ 1963 esa iz0dz0&72@61 ds }kjk rglhynkj }kjk oknxzLr Hkwfe dk oknh dks Lokeh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkuk iw.kZr% xyr gS] d;ksfd lafgrk ykxw gksus ds iwoZ oknh dk ;k mlds firk dk oknxzLr Hkwfe ij dCtk gksus ds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; ugha gSA** 7. In appeal preferred by the plaintiff the Appellate Court concurred the finding arrived at by the trial Court qua the plaintiff's contention of having bhumiswami right over the property through his father who was indicted as lessee by the then Ilakedar in the year 1941. 8. The Appellate Court while dwelling upon the plea of the plaintiff qua Exhibit P/9 said to be the lease executed in favour of plaintiff's father observed in paragraph 12 of judgment dated 18.07.2006. ^^12- ;fn izn'kZ ih&9 ds iV~Vk dks ns[kk tk, rks ;g fnukad 24@8@41 dks fy[kk x;k gS vkSj bl fnukad dks cknh ds nkok ds vfHkopu ds eqrkfcd iV~Vk fd, tkus dk RkF; ugha fy[kk x;k gSA ;fn oknh ds izn'kZ ih&9 ds iV~Vk fd, tkus dk RkF; ugha fy[kk x;k gS] ;fn oknh ds izn'kZ ih&9 ds iV~Vk ds laca/k esa nkok nk;j fnukad dks tkudkjh Fkh rks mlus vius firk ds i{k esa izn'kZ ih&9 dk iV~Vk fy[ks tkus dk lgha fnukad D;ksa ugha fy[kok;k] ;g fopkj.kh; iz'u gS] ;g iV~Vk fy[ks tkus ds ckn blds vk/kkj ij mlds firk us vius uke ntZ fd, tkus ds fy;s bls jktLo vf/kdkfj;ksa ds le{k fy[ks tkus ls izLrqr fnukad D;ksa ugha is'k fd;k] bls Hkh Li"V ugha fd;k gSA oknh us nwljk egRoiw.kZ nLrkost okf"kZd [krkSuh tekcanh o"kZ 1958&59 izn'kZ ih&3 ds nLrkost dks eq[; vk/kkj crk;k gS ftldk voyksdu djus ij ik;k x;k fd oknxzLr Hkwfe ds ekfyd dk'rdkj ds :i esa bZ'ojh izlkn dk uke ntZ gS vkSj [ksfrgj ds :i esa tkSts egkohj vkSj dseyk dkNh dk uke fy[kk gqvk gS] tks ;g lkfcr dj nsrk gS fd oknh ds firk ds i{k esa izn'kZ ih&9 dk iV~Vk fy[kk gh ugha x;k Fkk] D;ksfd ;fn mlds i{k esa iV~Vk fy[kk x;k gksrk rks izn'kZ ih&3 ds [krkSuh esa o"kZ 1958&59 esa fookfnr Hkwfe dk ekfyd] dk'rdkj bZ'ojhizlkn gksrkA bl izdkj izn'kZ ih&9 dk nLrkost mijksDr lHkh dkj.kksa ls fuf'pr :i ls Ikqjkus dkxt ij ubZ izfof"V dj QthZ :i ls rS;kj fd;k x;k] izekf.kr gksrk gS] blfy, rglhynkj dk vkns'k izn'kZih&8 fcuk fdlh vk/kkj ds fn;k x;k vkns'k gS ftlls oknh dks dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha feyrk gSA** 9. Though it is contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that both the Courts below erred in arriving at conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish the Patta having been executed in favour of his father in the year 1941; however, perusal of evidence on record and the analysis thereof by both the Courts does not reflect any perversity in finding-arrived at as would warrant any interference. 10. Consequently, since no substantial question of law arise for consideration, appeal fails and is dismissed.