JUDGMENT
P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. During the course of hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C .”) learned counsel for the appellant places the judgments of the courts below where the facts and the evidence has not only been noted but also discussed for giving a concurrent finding in allowing the plaintiff’s suit declaring his right over 8 decimals of land which was in dispute the Title Suit No. 126 of 1992 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Second Court, Cuttack and Title Appeal No. 143 of 1995 of the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Cuttack. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant at length this Court carries the feeling that the appellant wants to re-agitate the issues virtually on factual aspect. For the reasons indicated below, this Court does not find existence of substantial question of law involved in this appeal and therefore the appeal is not admitted.
2. Defendant is the appellant before this Court.
3. Plaintiff filed the suit claiming right, title and interest over the Ac. 0.08 decimals out of Ac. 0.12 decimals of land of Hal Plot No. 3395. According to the plaintiff, out of the said 12 decimals of land defendant illegally claimed 4 decimals and that was settled in his name under Section 10 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. But, so far as the remaining 8 decimals, i.e., the disputed suit land is concerned, in the absence of any settlement in his favour the defendant is creating disturbance in his possession taking advantage of settlement of the said four decimals of land. Accordingly he prayed for a decree. Plaintiff’s claim is based on title on the basis of transfer from the predecessor in title and possession.
4. Defendant filed the written statement, inter alia, contending that the whole 12 decimals of land of plot No. 3395 was the ‘Rayati’ land under Sebik Plot No. 2759 belonging to Bira Mohapatra and his co-sharers and that, while rendering service under said Bira Mohapatra his (defendant’s) father was permitted to construct a house and to remain in possession of the entire 12 decimals of land about 50 years back. In view of that the defendant made application for settlement of that land in his favour under Section 10 of the L. R. Act and the Tahasildar-cum-Revenue Officer only settled four decimals of land.
5. The pleadings of the parties further go to show that the order of the Tahasildar was not interfered with by the Higher Revenue Forum through appeal and revision were preferred.
6. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. On assessment of such evidence on record when the courts below were satisfied that the plaintiff has been able to prove title and possession of the predecessors in interest so also acquiring right, title, interest and possession by the plaintiff on the basis of valid registered documents but the defendant signally failed to prove any connection between the said Bira Mohapatra and the disputed case land and under such circumstance the claim advanced by the defendant regarding his possession on the basis of the oral permission of Bira Mohapatra has remained a myth. On further discussion of evidence on record a concurrent finding of facts has been recorded by the courts below regarding the factum of possession in favour of the plaintiff over the disputed suit land and accordingly decree has been passed.
7. In course of hearing on admission under Order 41, Rule 11 C.P.C. this Court wanted to know from the defendant/appellant if he possesses any document or can trace and produce any document that said Bira Mohapatra had any nexus with the disputed case land at any point of time but learned counsel for the defendant/ appellant avoided to answer that question by repeatedly stating that the defendant is an illiterate rustic and no such document can be produced by him. That stand of the defendant clearly indicates that he has no document whatsoever to show that Bira Mohapatra was ever owner of the property or had possession over the disputed case land to grant permission for occupation as per the plea in the written statement.
8. Be that as it may, the contention of the appellant in this appeal is almost factual while challenging the judgment and decrees concurrently passed by the courts below. Keeping in view the provision in Section 100 of the C.P.C. and the aforesaid facts and circumstance, this Court is not inclined to re-assess the evidence on record when there is no illegality of perversity in the approach adopted by the courts below.
Accordingly the Second Appeal is not admitted and stands dismissed.