Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durga Prasad Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 April, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17450
1 SA-2264-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 15th OF APRIL, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2264 of 2023
DURGA PRASAD PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant.
JUDGMENT
This appeal was heard and reserved for orders on admission on 28/01/2025.
2. This appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant/defendant who has lost in both the Courts, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16/08/2023 passed in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.75/2017 and 81/2017 by the District Judge (13th) , Jabalpur, whereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 31/03/2017 passed in Civil Suit No.52A/2015 passed by Seventh Civil Judge, Class-II, District Jabalpur.
3. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has lost in both the Courts. There is concurrent findings against the appellant/plaintiff. It was further submitted that both the courts ignored the fact regarding ex-parte order dated 02/07/1994 of Registrar, Public Trust (Ex.P/7) wherein it was stated Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2025 10:58:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17450 2 SA-2264-2023 that appellant/plaintiff refused to take notice, however evidence was not recorded and enquiry was also not conducted under Order 5 Rules 17 & 19 of CPC in the light of document Ex.P/1. It was further submitted that both the courts did not consider validity of Tamleek Nama (Ex.P/1) dated 17/03/1964 and document (Ex.P/1) provision of Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was further submitted that order dated 17/05/1999 passed by the Registrar, Public Trust is bad in law as the person appointed by this order Shri Niranjay Patel had already expired. It was further stated that no enquiry was conducted whether the disputed temple is a public temple or a private temple. In terms of Sections 4 & 5 of Madhya Pradesh Public Trust, 1951 and Rule 5 of M.P. Public Trust, Rules, 1962. It was further submitted that no proper appreciation has been made regarding fact that whether Bhuri Bai had validly cancelled her own Tamleek Nama (Ex.P/19 dated 16/10/1973 by her registered Will (Ex.P/5) dated 25/03/1985.
4 . Considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
5. On perusal of the record, it is seen that in RCS No.52-A/2015 (Durga Prasad Patel vs. State of M.P. and others) vide judgment and decree dated 31/03/2017 in which the suit was filed for declaration of his legal status as Sarvaharakar and also for declaration that Ram Janki Temple is a private trust and the orders dated 02/07/1994, 17/05/1999 and 25/01/2002 are void in law. Learned trial Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2025 10:58:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17450 3 SA-2264-2023 framed the issues and after hearing both the parties partly allowed the suit. On an appeal preferred by the other party in RCA No.75/2017 and RCA No.81/2015 preferred by the plaintiff, learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16/08/2023 dismissed both the appeals.
6. It is further seen that the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have considered all the pleadings, facts and legal aspects on the point and, therefore there is nothing by way of substantial question of law on which this second appeal can be admitted.
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 based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based on Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2025 10:58:14 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17450 4 SA-2264-2023 no evidence.
8. Thus, in view above analysis, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal on which it can be admitted. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed at admission stage itself.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE mc Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANJU CHOUKSEY Signing time: 16-04-2025 10:58:14