Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manaku vs Jhanaklal & Ors on 7 January, 2015
Second Appeal No. 762/2004
(Manaku (dead) through L.Rs. Shyamlal and others Vs.
Jhanaklal and others)
07.01.2015
Heard Ms. Neena Khera, learned counsel for the
appellant on the question of admission.
This appeal has been filed by the appellant being
aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 12.05.2004
passed by the District Judge, Mandla in Civil Appeal No.
42-A/2003 whereby the judgment and decree dated
03.03.2003 passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-II,
Mandla in C.S. No. 102-A/2003 has been confirmed and
affirmed and the suit for declaration and injunction filed by
the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed and concurrent
findings have been recorded against the appellant by the
courts below.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the present
second appeal are that the suit was filed by the appellant
contending that the land in question was the exclusive
property of the appellants and they had got the same from
the erstwhile Malgujar, however, the courts below without
taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect have
dismissed the suit and have held that the property in
question is a joint property which finding is perverse giving
rise to a substantial question of law.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, it
is observed that the courts below have held that the
property was recorded in the name of Sukali, grand-father
of the appellants after it was gifted by Malgujarand
thereafter on his death, it was recorded in the name of the
brothers and sisters i.e. the appellants and the
respondents.
On the basis of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence the courts below have recorded the concurrent finding to the effect that the property is joint and is not the exclusive property of the appellant.
Even before this court, the appellant has not been able to indicate that the property was given exclusively to the appellants by the Malgujar or that it was ever recorded exclusively in the name of the appellant.
Apparently, the finding recorded by the courts below is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record and does not suffer from any perversity or material irregularity giving rise to any substantial question of law.
In view of the aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the present appeal.
The appeal being meritless is accordingly dismissed.
(R.S. Jha) Judge msp