Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Khurshida @ Khushila Begum vs Harpreet Singh on 8 January, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:738
1 SA-749-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 749 of 2024
SMT. KHURSHIDA @ KHUSHILA BEGUM AND OTHERS
Versus
HARPREET SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Maqbool Khan - Advocate for the appellants.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants who have lost in both the courts.
2. At the time of arguments on admission learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Dr. Rajeev Yadav, who was owner of the suit property though sold the property to the respondents - plaintiffs but before that he had already sold the suit property to the appellants- defendants by an agreement to sale ("Kabuleeyatnama") dated 18.12.2008. He further submitted that the appellants- defendants had filed a suit in the year 2010 for grant of injunction against the plaintiffs. The aforesaid suit was decreed on 4.5.2023 but new purchaser of the suit property namely Sardar Paramjeet Singh filed a suit for eviction against Smt. Khurshida Begam which was decreed.
3. Perused the judgment dated 7.7.2023 passed in Civil Suit No. 233-A of 2015 (Sardar Paramjeet Singh through L.Rs. Vs. Smt. Khurshida Begam and others) for the suit house, i.e. MIG C-11/109, Housing Board Colony, Dhanwantri Nagar, Jabalpur, by which, suit of the plaintiffs was decreed regarding eviction and payment of arrears.
4. On an appeal filed by the defendants, learned First Appellate Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS Signing time: 09-01-2025 10:46:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:738 2 SA-749-2024 dismissed the appeal in Regular Civil Appeal No.255-A of 2023, vide judgment dated 15th February 2023.
5. Ex. D-1 is the Kabuliyatnama, in which, Dr. Rajeev Yadav admitted that he had received Rs.50,000/- out of Rs.1,50,000/- from the husband of Smt. Khurshida Begam to sell the house and he is ready to execute the sale deed in favour of Smt. Khurshida Begam through M.P. Housing Board.
6. It is seen that no suit for specific performance was filed by Smt. Khurshida Begam against Dr. Rajeet Yadav on the strength of Kabuliyatnama (Ex.D-1) dated 18.12.2008 whereas the sale deed/joint affidavit in favour of Paramjeet Singh is Ex.P-11. It is also seen that all the points have been considered by both the Courts. Infact, both the cases were pending before the same courts while the Civil Suit No.233-A of 2015 was filed by Smt. Khurshida Begam for grant of injunction and the judgment dated 7.7.2023 in C.S. No.233-A of 2015 was delivered by the same learned Judge who had passed the judgment in Civil Suit No.93-A of 2015, vide judgment dated 4.5.2023 (Smt. Khurshida Begam Vs. Dr. Rajeev Yadav and another). Therefore, no point remains untouched by both the Courts, either legally or factually. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication.
7. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well defined by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material on record. [See: Narayan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Antoher, (2012) 8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011) 1 SCC 158 Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare, (2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264] The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are Signature Not Verified Signed by: BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS Signing time: 09-01-2025 10:46:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:738 3 SA-749-2024 based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based on no evidence.
8. In above discussions, this appeal being sans merit stands dismissed. However, it seems that Rs.50,000/- were not returned to Smt. Khurshida Begam by Dr. Rajeev Yadav. If that is the case, then all rights are reserved with Smt. Khurshida Begam to recover the said amount. She can raise her grievance by filing a separate proceeding, if permissible under law.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE bks Signature Not Verified Signed by: BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS Signing time: 09-01-2025 10:46:03