Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of M.P.Th.Coll.Harda vs Pandit Gokul Prasad Vyas on 12 March, 2015
SA-837-2004
(THE STATE OF M.P.TH.COLL.HARDA Vs PANDIT GOKUL PRASAD VYAS)
12-03-2015
Heard Shri S.S. Chouhan, learned Dy. G.A. for the
appellant/State and Ms. Sudipta Choubey, learnd counsel for
the respondent on the question of admission.
The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 14.11.2003 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Harda, in Civil Appeal No. 63-A/2003 whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2000 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Harda in Civil Suit No. 215-A/91 has been reversed by the First Appellate Court and the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent for grant of political pension in respect of the work performed by the respondent as Pujari of Sedheswar and Redheswar Temple, Handia District Harda, has been allowed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the court below has wrongly reversed the well reasoned judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit, without taking into consideration the fact that there was no order of the competent authority granting political pension to the respondent and that the pension which was being granted to the respondent's father, was not inheritable. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the aforesaid, the finding is perverse. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, it is observed that the court below basically taking into consideration the order dated 23.11.1931 Ex. P/4 wherein a mention is made of order dated 22.11.1884 by which the pension in perpetuity was granted to Ramprasad Pujari till Puja in the temple continued to be performed. The court below has also taken into consideration Ex. P/5 dated 22.01.1948 by which the Commissioner subsequently granted remaining pension to Rameshwar Prasad who is the father of the respondent. The court below has also taken into consideration the fact that Onkar Prasad was the grand-father of the respondent and Rameshwar Prasad was his father and as the pension was being paid to all these persons, therefore the court has also granted political pension to the respondent. The court below has also taken into consideration the document by which the request of the respondent to release political pension was deferred till decision of the authority. The first appellate court has also taken into consideration the documents Ex. P/10, P/12 and P/13 and has recorded a conclusion to the effect that the pension in question was inheritable/perpetual pension which was being paid to the Pujari of the temple since Samvat 1694.
The court below after taking into consideration the aforesaid perpetual and inheritable nature of the pension, has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and allowed the claim of the respondent.
The aforesaid finding recorded by the first appellate court is based on proper analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record and does not suffer from any perversity or material irregularity warranting interference by this court nor it can be said that the decision of the first appellate court is based on no evidence. It is a settled law that mere possibility of another conclusion does not give rise to a substantial question of law for adjudication in the present appeal. In view of the aforesaid analysis, I am of the considered opinion, that no substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the present appeal. The appeal being meritless is accordingly dismissed.
(RAVI SHANKAR JHA) JUDGE