Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1619 (HP)

Ram Nath v. Bansi Lal

2016-08-05

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2000, passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Theog in Civil Suit No.543/1 of 1994. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their family members from interfering in the supply of water from two sources situated in Chak Snahoo. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that he is recorded owner in possession of land denoted by khasra Nos. 156/41, 163/41, 164/41, 39 and 40 in Chak Snahoo, Pargana Palana, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P., alongwith others, but in pursuance of family arrangement the said land is in his exclusive possession. It is also averred in the plaint that on khasra No.40 there was an old house and which was recently dismantled and a new house is under construction. There is the land of the State of H.P. comprised in khasra No.174/14, adjacent to the land of the plaintiff and below this land, there is Ghasni of defendant No.2 comprised in khasra No.27. Plaintiff further averred that there are two water sources in khasra No.174/14 and both the sources are at a distance of near about 2/3 metres from each other and water from these sources flow down towards khasra No.27. As per plaintiff, there are rocks and bushes on the boundary of khasra No.27 and khasra No.174/14. Earlier the water from these sources were tapped through khul upto khasra No.40, however, from the last more than 25 years the water was brought through alkhathin pipes laid through khul and as such, this right is being enjoyed as of right, openly, peacefully and without any interruption from the last more than six decades. Plaintiff further averred that in view of the above, defendants have no right to interfere in the enjoyment of such rights. Plaintiff has also averred in his plaint that defendants have even tried to disrupt the water supply on 17.5.199, compelling him to institute a case under Section 107 Cr.P.C against defendant No.3 and his wife. Plaintiff further averred that in view of the above, defendants have no right to interfere in the enjoyment of such rights. Plaintiff has also averred in his plaint that defendants have even tried to disrupt the water supply on 17.5.199, compelling him to institute a case under Section 107 Cr.P.C against defendant No.3 and his wife. According to the plaintiff, cause of action accrued in his favour and against the defendants about two days back when defendants No.1, 3 and 4 tried to remove the pipes of the plaintiff and as such, he was constrained to file the suit. 3. Defendants, by way of filing joint written statement refuted the averments contained in the plaint. But perusal of the averments contained in the written statements suggests that the defendants admitted that there was an old house of the plaintiff over khasra No.40 and now new construction of the house is being raised. Defendants specifically denied that khasra No.174/14 is adjacent to the land of the plaintiff and stated that khasra No.174/14 is abutted to the land of defendants No.1 and 2 from the lower side, which is denoted by khasra No.27. Defendants also denied that two water sources exists on khasra No.174/14, rather claimed that water sources exists over khasra No.27. The defendants specifically denied that the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest ever used water from these sources and at present water is being taken through alkhathin pipes. Defendants also stated that a false case under Section 107 Cr.P.C was filed by the plaintiff since there was no disturbance of the water supply to him. 4. By way of replication, plaintiff while denying the allegations made in the written statement, re-affirmed and reasserted the stand taken in the plaint. In replication, he further clarified that two water sources are situated six or seven metres away from the boundary of khasra No.27 and the water from there flows down towards khasra No.27, where it has been tapped by the plaintiff. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether there are two water sources over khasra No.174/14? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the water from those two water sources flow to khasra No.27? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to take away water from khasra No.27 by way of easement of prescription? OPP. 4. Whether there are two water sources over khasra No.174/14? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the water from those two water sources flow to khasra No.27? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to take away water from khasra No.27 by way of easement of prescription? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP. 5. Relief:- 6. The learned trial Court decided all the aforesaid issues against the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the learned Appellate Court was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. 7. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “(1) Whether the pleadings of the parties, the plaint, replication have been construed in pedantic manner and it has been wrongly found that the plea of acquisition of right to water from khasra number 27 by prescription had not been pleaded though on a proper construction of the pleadings, a clear case of acquisition of prescription rights was made out and in any event, the pleadings have been pedantically construed and a wrong inference raised not warranted on the material on record? (2) Whether the findings are not in accordance with the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5 of the C.P.C and the binding judgment of this Court reported in AIR 2000(1) H.P. Om Prakash v. State of H.P.” 8. It may be noticed that keeping in view the nature of controversy i.e. water dispute involved in the present case, this Court deemed it fit to send the matter for mediation and accordingly vide order dated 10.5.2016, matter was sent for mediation, however the fact remains that the parties could not arrive at amicable settlement and as such, matter was listed for final hearing vide order dated 28.6.2016. 9. Mr. K.D.Sood, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate representing the appellant, vehemently argued that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable being perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence as also pleadings of the parties and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. 9. Mr. K.D.Sood, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate representing the appellant, vehemently argued that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable being perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence as also pleadings of the parties and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Sood, strenuously argued that bare perusal of the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below shows that the evidence led on record by the plaintiff have not been read in its entirety by the Courts below and as such, judgments being not based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Sood, also contended that both the Courts below have erred in law while holding that the water springs were not in khasra No.174/2 but on khasra No.27 and as such, plaintiff did not have the exclusive right to take the water from the said two water springs. As per Mr. Sood, learned Courts below have failed to acknowledge the fact that, if it is presumed that water springs were in khasra No.27, even then the plaintiff had pleaded that he has the exclusive rights of water from the two water springs, which was being used by him and his predecessors since generation for drinking water, water for the cattle and for gardening the vegetable etc. and as such, a clear cut case of acquisition of rights by prescription was made out and the Courts below have fallen in error while holding that the plaintiff did not claim rights of prescription or set up such a case in the pleadings. 10. Mr. Sood, forcibly contended that the pleadings of the parties have not been construed in its right perspective because bare perusal of the plaint and replication filed by the plaintiff clearly suggest that the plaintiff had carved out a clear cut case of easementary rights to take water from water springs and as such, Courts below erred in construing pleadings so technically and strictly ignoring the fact that it was a clear case where claim of easementary rights by prescription has been made out by the plaintiff. Mr. Mr. Sood, forcibly contended that learned District Judge, which is a Court of fact has erred in law in not independently and critically examining the oral as well as documentary evidence in the case and the entire approach of the Court below to the facts and circumstances of the case is erroneous and the issues framed in the case have not been satisfactorily and independently decided, as required under Order 29 Rule 5 of CPC, as held in AIR 2000(1) H.P Om Prakash versus State of Himachal Pradesh. He also stated that wrong assumptions have been drawn from the facts and the findings are based on pure surmises and conjecture. The report of the Kanungo that the water spring was not on khasra No.174/2 but on khasra No.27 did not in any way mitigate the case of the plaintiff to the exclusive rights, which was being claimed by the plaintiff openly, continuously as of right for a period of more than 20 years and as such, he prayed for setting aside the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below. 11. Mr. G.D.Verma, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate, supported the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below. Mr. Verma, vehemently argued that bare perusal of the judgments and decree passed by learned Courts below clearly suggest that same are based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and as such, no interference, whatsoever, of this Court is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Verma, also stated that this Court has very limited power to re-appreciate the evidence especially when both the Courts below returned concurrent findings. Mr. Verma, while concluding his arguments, categorically stated that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 13. This Court while admitting the appeal framed two substantial questions of law, as referred hereinabove. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 13. This Court while admitting the appeal framed two substantial questions of law, as referred hereinabove. Perusal whereof, clearly suggest that this Court needs to determine whether averments contained in the plaint and replication filed by the plaintiff were construed in pedantic manner and plea of acquisition of right to water from khasra No.27 by prescription was made out by the plaintiff in his plaint or not. This Court also needs to explore whether Courts below adopted hypotechnical approach while ignoring the aforesaid plea of acquisition of right of water taken by the plaintiff in his pleadings or not. Similarly, this Court would be examining whether the Courts below failed to return findings on the issues framed in the case independently ignoring the provisions of law as initiated under Order 29 Rule 5 of CPC as well as law laiddown by this Court in AIR 2000(1) H.P. Om Prakash versus State of H.P. 14. Admittedly, both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings that there is no credible evidence to prove that water is/was being used by plaintiff for the last more than Twenty years and as such, this Court in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of cases, has very limited scope to re-appreciate the evidence to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of concurrent findings returned by both the Courts below, unless same are perverse. However, this Court solely with a view to answer substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal as well as to ascertain that judgments passed by both the Courts below are not perverse and same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence would be looking into the material evidence led on record by the respective parties. 15. Plaintiff by filing suit for perpetual injunction claimed that he is recorded owner in possession of land comprised of khasra No.156/41, 163/41, 164/41, 39 and 40 in Chak Snahoo, Pargana Palana, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P alongwith other co-sharers and claimed himself to be in exclusive possession of land by way of family arrangement. Plaintiff also stated that khasra No.40 is abadhi and rest of the land is cultivated land. Plaintiff also stated that khasra No.40 is abadhi and rest of the land is cultivated land. The plaintiff and his predecessors had an old house in khasra No.40 since decades but now after dismantling the same, a new house is under construction. As per the plaintiff, defendants No.3 and 4 use exclusively the water for drinking, watering cattle and for other purposes from a different water source situated near their house. However, it would be profitable to reproduce para-3 of the plaint herein:- “ That adjacent to the land of the plaintiff is khasra No.174/14 which is charand land and in the ownership of the Sate, below this charand is the Gashani of defendant No.2 compromised in khasra No.27 of Chak Snahoo. There are two small water sources in the Charand land above khasra No.27. The both sources are at a distance of about 2/3 meters from each other, which flow down towards Grass land of defendant No.2. On the boundary of khasra No.27 and charand land there are chain of rocks and bushes. The water sources referred above in this para are in exclusive use of the plaintiff and his predecessors since generations beyond the memory of living generation for drinking, watering cattle and growing vegetable etc. Previously, water of these two sources were tapped through khul and partly cut in the rocks to the house of the plaintiff and his predecessor upto khasra No.40 of chak Snahoo. There was water pond also but for the last more than 25 years the water was brought through alkhathin pipes laid through the khul, as of right, openly peaceably without any interruption for the last more than 6 deceases either through charand or khasra No.27 as an easement exclusively for the beneficial enjoyment of the plaintiff and his predecessor or servants etc. The defendants or their predecessors never used the water of these two sources at any time and have no right to use the same or disrupt the water supply from the said sources for exclusive use of the plaintiff, henceforth these sources are described as suit sources.” 16. Defendants by way of written statement contested the averments contained in para-3 as referred hereinabove, wherein they stated as under:- “It is denied that the Charand land denoted by khasra No.174/14 is adjacent to the land of the plaintiff. Defendants by way of written statement contested the averments contained in para-3 as referred hereinabove, wherein they stated as under:- “It is denied that the Charand land denoted by khasra No.174/14 is adjacent to the land of the plaintiff. Said Charand is abutted by the land of the defendants No.1 and 2 from the lower side and from one side it is abutted by the land of Smt. Debkoo etc. It is admitted that below this charand there is Ghasani of the defendants No.1 and 2 denoted by khasra No.27. It is wrong and denied that there are two small water concoction on the part of the plaintiff, said water sources are in the land of the defendants No.1 and 2 denoted by khasra No.27. It is wrong and denied that there are to small water sources referred and his predecessors, the plaintiff never used the water of said sources. The defendants No.1 and 2 are taking the water from the said sources, through the Alkhathin pipe, they have also constructed the tank for the same. It is denied that previously the water of these sources were tapped through khool as alleged. It is denied that for the last 26 years the water was brought through Alkathin pipes, this is all concocted on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has concocted the false theory of long use etc. when in fact he never used the water of these sources which are in the land in the possession of the defendants No.1 and 2. The assled easement is wrong and denied.” 17. Careful perusal of the averments contained in the written statement, suggest that the defendants denied that the charand land denoted by khasra No.174/14 is adjacent to the land of the plaintiff and claimed that charand is abutted to the land of defendants No.1 and 2 from the lower side and from one side it is abutted by the land of Smt. Debkoo etc. Defendants admitted that below charand, there is Ghasani of defendants No.1 and 2 denoted by khasra No.27. It is denied that there are two small water sources in the charand land above khasra No.27.It is further denied that the water sources referred in this para are in exclusive use of the plaintiff and his predecessors as they never used the water of said sources. It is denied that there are two small water sources in the charand land above khasra No.27.It is further denied that the water sources referred in this para are in exclusive use of the plaintiff and his predecessors as they never used the water of said sources. Defendants specifically stated that they are taking the water from the said sources through alkathin pipe. The defendants specifically stated that since plaintiff never used the water of these sources, which are in the land in possession of the defendants No.1 and 2, the claim of easementary rights is wrong and denied. 18. Learned trial Court below with a view to ascertain, on which land water sources exists, framed issue No.1 whether there are two water sources over khasra No.174/14 and examined the issue with the help of revenue record, wherein State of H.P. is recorded as the owner of the land comprised in khasra No.174/14 and the defendants are recorded co-owners alongwith others in the land denoted by khasra No.27. In nutshell, the claim of the plaintiff that there are two water sources in land comprised khasra No.174/14 and the water from there flows down to khasra No.27 and from where he has tapped the water to his house situated over khasra No.40, whereas defendants while denying the case of the plaintiff have stated that these two water sources are situated in khasra No.27 and no water has been channelized by the plaintiff to his house. 19. In the present case, plaintiff with a view to substantiate his claim appeared as PW-2 and reiterated the averments contained in the written statement. However, in his cross-examination he admitted that water sources are situated in khasra No.27 and he had got demarcation of the said land. He also admitted that DW-3 had given the report Ex.DA showing that the water sources are situated in khasra No.27. Plaintiff categorically admitted the correctness of Ex.DA i.e. report, by making statement Ex.PX at the time of demarcation. Admittedly, he has nowhere stated that the water sources are situated in khasra No.174/14. Since plaintiff has not cross-examined DW-3 to show that the demarcation has not been conducted in accordance with law, same needs to be presumed to be carried out in accordance with law. Moreover, DW-3 has categorically described that as to how he had conducted the demarcation and as such, correctness of Ex.DA cannot be challenged. Since plaintiff has not cross-examined DW-3 to show that the demarcation has not been conducted in accordance with law, same needs to be presumed to be carried out in accordance with law. Moreover, DW-3 has categorically described that as to how he had conducted the demarcation and as such, correctness of Ex.DA cannot be challenged. Admittedly, DW-3, who demarcated the land is not a revenue officer, who was entitled to demarcate the land as per Section 107 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. But, since plaintiff never challenged the authenticity of the report, there was no occasion whatsoever, for the learned Court to reject the same. Since plaintiff failed to prove that the water sources are situated in khasra No.174/14, Courts below rightly relied upon the report Ex.DA of DW-3, wherein he categorically stated that water sources is situated over khasra No.27 owned by the defendants. 20. Though, plaintiff set up a case that there are two water sources in land comprised khasra No.174/14 and the water from there flows down to khasra No.27 but as emerge from his statement, wherein he categorically admitted that water sources are situated over khasra No.27.Similarly, PW-2 did not state about two water sources, rather he referred only to one water source which is situated in government land. Careful perusal of the statement of PW-3 also not suggests that out of two water sources, the water of which source is being used by plaintiff. On the other hand, DW-1 and DW-2 categorically stated that there are two water sources in khasra No.27. About the distance between the house and the said water sources, the plaintiff or his witnesses have not stated anything. DW-1 stated that distance between house and the said water sources is about five or six metres, however DW-2 stated that the distance is near about 30 to 35 metres. Though, there are variation with regard to distance between two water sources in the statements given by DW-1 and DW-2 but interestingly, no cross-examination has been conducted on this point by the plaintiff. Record further reveals that at the time of demarcation, plaintiff nowhere raised the plea with regard to existence of any water sources in khasra No.174/14 and in his cross-examination he admitted that water sources are situated in khasra No.27. 21. Record further reveals that at the time of demarcation, plaintiff nowhere raised the plea with regard to existence of any water sources in khasra No.174/14 and in his cross-examination he admitted that water sources are situated in khasra No.27. 21. After reading the statements of DW-1 and DW-2, it clearly stand established on record that two water sources are situated in khasra No.27 and plaintiff has not been able to prove that any water sources are situated over khasra No.174/14, where upon the State of Himachal Pradesh has been recorded as owner of the land. Since the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the water sources exist/ situated on khasra No.174/14, plaintiff could not claim the same as a matter of right. Moreover, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove his right to use the water to succeed in the suit. 22. Even perusal of the pleadings contained in the plaint suggest that it has been specific stand of the plaintiff that the water comes to khasra No.27 and from where he has tapped the same by using alkhathin pipes. It has been also stated that earlier the water was taken through khul and now for the last about 25 years the water is being brought through alkhathin pipes laid through the khul. Though, it has been pleaded in the plaint that water is being used from the time immemorial i.e. more than six decades but PW-2 stated that they are using the water from the last 30-35 years. In his statement, he also stated that the water has been channelized through Khul and the wooden pipe. Whereas PW-2 in his statement stated that for the last 15-20 years the water has been taken through pipes. PW-3 stated that earlier water was being used by Mangle and Sadhu, who were the tenants over the said land. In the cross-examination, these witnesses have admitted that now days there are water pipes of defendant No.1 to tap the water, however, PW-2 has stated that defendant No.1 has tapped the water of second source. PW-2 also stated that water of second sources is also being used by him. However, PW-3 has gone one step forward by stating that now the pipes of defendants are there. 23. Whereas, careful perusal of statements of DW-1 and DW-2 clearly suggest that water from these two sources was not used by the plaintiff. PW-2 also stated that water of second sources is also being used by him. However, PW-3 has gone one step forward by stating that now the pipes of defendants are there. 23. Whereas, careful perusal of statements of DW-1 and DW-2 clearly suggest that water from these two sources was not used by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court below has rightly taken note of the suggestion put to DW-2 on behalf of the plaintiff that house of the defendant is situated 2 or 3 KM away from the disputed water sources from where he has taken the water through pipe. 24. Conjoint reading of the statements of PW1 to PW-3, nowhere suggest that they have been using water from any of these two sources mentioned by them in their plaint, rather it has come in the evidence that land of many persons are situated nearby and they could also the best witnesses on this point. Whereas DW-1 and DW-2 have very consistent and specific in stating that two water sources situated over the land comprised khasra No.27 and same are being used by them and at no point of time plaintiff and their predecessor used water from that source by tapping the same by way of alakthin pipes. 25. Apart from above, it is well established that to claim right, if any, under Section 15 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882, continuous use for 20 years as a right to do the act complained of in assertion of title, openly, as of right and peaceable must be pleaded in unambiguous term. But in the instant case since plaintiff has not been able to prove that from which khasra number water is flowing, his plea of easement by prescription cannot be accepted. 26. Plaintiff with a view to claim easementary rights was under obligation to show on which khasra number water sources are situated. But as has been discussed above, though plaintiff tried to prove that these water sources are situated over khasra No.174/14 by stating the same in the plaint, but perusal of statements made by plaintiff witness before the Court clearly suggest that they have not been able to prove that the water sources are situated in khasra No.174/14, rather PW-1 categorically stated that water sources are situated in khasra No. 27. 27. 27. Since plaintiff was unable to show that the water sources are situated in khasra No.174/14, his claim of having easementary right by way of prescription was rightly not appreciated by the Courts below. Interestingly, plaintiff nowhere in his pleadings averred that water sources in question situated in khasra No.27 and he acquired easementary rights by way of prescription to use water from the sources, rather it has been stated that adjacent to the land of the plaintiff is khasra No.174/14, which is charand land in the ownership of the State. Even perusal of para-3 as has been reproduced hereinabove of the plaint, nowhere suggest that plaintiff specifically stated that water sources existed on khasra No.174/14, rather it has been stated that below khasra No.174/14 there is ghashani over khasra No.27, meaning thereby at no point of time plaintiff was aware on which khasra number two water sources existed. 28. Pleadings made in the plaint as well evidence led on record by plaintiff nowhere suggest that he has prescriptive easementary right to take water from two sources through the land comprised in khasra No.27. 29. Apart from above, plaintiff has been not able to prove any right of water from the sources situated on khasra No.27 by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the findings of both the Courts below . Hence, this Court is of the view that both the Courts have rightly refuted that the plea of plaintiff qua acquisition of water from khasra No.27 and as such, substantial question is answered accordingly. 30. This Court also examined another contention put forth on behalf of the plaintiff that learned trial Court below failed to comply with the provisions of Order 20 RuLe 5 C.P.C., while deciding the issues. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that no independent findings qua each issues have been returned by the learned trial Court, which is mandatory in terms of the aforesaid provisions of law. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that no independent findings qua each issues have been returned by the learned trial Court, which is mandatory in terms of the aforesaid provisions of law. But aforesaid contention put forth on behalf of the plaintiff also deserve outright rejection solely for the reasons that this Court while examining/exploring the answer of substantial questions of law had an occasion to sift the entire evidence to ascertain correctness and genuineness of the averments contained in the plaint, wherein this Court found that learned trial Court specifically dealt with each and every issue and arrived at a conclusion that plaintiff has been not able to prove that two water sources existed over khasra No.174/14 while answering issue No.1 that whether two sources over khasra No.174/14 exists. Since, it emerged in the evidence led on record by the respective parties that water sources existed in khasra No.27 owned by the defendants, Court below have rightly held that the plaintiff have no right to take away the water from khasra No.27 by way of easement of prescription. Plaintiff has miserably failed to prove on record that they as well as their predecessor have been using this water from the sources for continuously for more than 20 years as a right openly and peacefully. In the present case, it clearly emerge from the evidence led on record as well as averments contained in the plaint that plaintiff has not been able to prove on which part of khasra number water sources exists. Both the Courts below have rightly concluded that plaintiff has not been able to prove his right by easement, if any, and as such, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by both the courts below. Accordingly substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 31. This Court sees no irregularity and infirmity, if any, in the judgments passed by the courts below, rather, same are based upon correct appreciation of the evidence available on record. This Court is fully satisfied that both the courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. Since both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, which otherwise appear to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence, this Court has very limited jurisdiction/scope to interfere in the matter. Since both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, which otherwise appear to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence, this Court has very limited jurisdiction/scope to interfere in the matter. In this regard, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264 , herein below:- “16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have established their right in 'A' schedule property. In the light of concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the 'A' schedule property for road and that she could not have full fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” 32. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, this court is of the view that the judgments passed by both the courts below are based on correct appreciation of the evidence made available on record and as such calls no interference of this court and accordingly, same are upheld. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed alongwith the pending applications if any.