Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors on 19 October, 2010
The next contention of the appellants is that the first
Appellate Court while considering the case put up by the
defendants based on adverse possession has ignored relevant
evidence. The Appellate Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment
has appraised oral evidence on the point of possession and
dispossession and relied on the evidence of P.W. 14 being a
witness from the boundary of the suit land who had deposed to
support the case of the plaintiff. The specific case of the plaintiff
that they continued in possession until dispossessed by the
defendants was also found support from Ext.E which is the order
passed in Case No. 512M/2001 wherein the defendants had
admitted that in the first week of December, 2001, the wall in
question was constructed by the ancestor of the defendants. The
Court below thus found much credence in the case of the plaintiff
that they were dispossessed in 2001. The Appellate Court thus
made independent assessment of the evidence and set out
Patna High Court SA No.347 of 2010 (8) dt.27-08-2014 9
reason(s) in support of the conclusions. Those findings do not
suffer from any perversity. They are not mere ipse dixit of the
Court or based on mere conjectures and surmises. If that be so
then these findings/conclusions cannot be flawed. The Apex Court
in Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity
Board (2010) 13 SCC 216 in paragraph 28 opined as under: