Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surajdeen Baiga vs Babulal Baiga on 24 May, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 24th OF May, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 2707 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SURAJDEEN BAIGA S/O DHANGA BAIGA, AGED ABOUT
72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE
PIPRI P.S. SIDHI TEHSIL JAISINHNAGAR, DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF
(BY MS. MALTI DADARIYA )
AND
1. BABULAL BAIGA S/O RASIYA BAIGA, AGED ABOUT 76
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE
PIPRI POLICE STATION SIDHI, TEHSIL
JAISINHNAGAR, DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR, SHAHDOL, DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MOLAI BAIGA S/O BABADEEN BAIGA, AGED ABOUT
47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILL.
PIPRI P.S. SIDHI TEH. JAISINHNAGAR DISTT.
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS
(BY SHRI RAMJI VERMA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 26.02.2024
Pronounced on : 24.05.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 6/3/2024
4:43:05 PM
2
This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
1) This Second Appeal by the appellant/ plaintiff has been filed against the judgment of the trial Court as well as appellate Court. The appellant/ plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6.7.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 06/2016 by Additional District Judge, Jainsinhnagar, District Shahdol affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 11-A/2015 by the First Civil Judge, Class 2, Jaisinhnagar, Distrct Shahdol.
2) At the outset it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff that she lost in both the Courts but both the Courts failed to see that plaintiff throughout the litigation had possession of the abandoned suit property. There was no occasion for the State to allot Patta earlier granted in favour of the ancestrors of the plaintiff to ancestors of defendants. Provision under M.P. Land Revenue Code and Evidence Act are not considered, therefore, prays for admission of this second appeal.
3) Persued the record of the trial Court. Learned First Civil Judge, Class II, Jainsinhnagar, District Shahdol in Civil Suit No. 11-A/15 (Gurudeen Baiga and others Vs. Babulal and others) vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2016 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title, permanent injunction and to declare null and void order of Tahsildar Jainsinhnagar dated 7.11.2008 and for restoring the possession of part of the suit property from defendant to plaintiff.
5) It was admitted between the parties that plaintiff filed an application for correction of record before Tahsildar Jainsinhnagar but that was dismissed on 7.11.2008 on the ground of having no jurisdiction. This is not disputed between the parties that after the year 1956, the State granted a Patta of the suit land in favour of the ancestors of the defendant No.1.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH Signing time: 6/3/2024 4:43:05 PM 36) The case of the plaintiff is that originally the suit property's patta was granted to the ancestors of plantiff late Tetram Baiga who died about 60 years ago and thereafter his son Thanga Baiga came into possession and plaintiffs are sons of Late Thanga Baiga but about 50 years ago due to drought in the region almost whole village was vacated by the inhabitants and they went to other far off places to earn their livelihood. The situtaton continued for 2 years. Before going away documents of Patta and other items were handed over to Rasiya Baiga due to good relations but meanwhile in the absence, Rasiya Baiga got the Patta mutated in his name from government. When the plaintiff party returned and tried to get Patta, it was stated that termites have destroyed the Patta. They could not get any help from the revenue authorities in this regard and meanwhile in July 2008 defendant No.1 encroached upon the suit property on the basis that he is Patta holder of the suit property. Earlier Thanga and Rasiya Baiga had expired. When plaintiff applied to the Tahsildar for correction of record that was dismissed on 17.11.2008. The defendant No.1 denied the plaint. Issues were framed, evidence recorded and suit was ultimately dismissed on merit as well as holding that the suit is time barred also and the judgment of the trial Court was affirmed by the appellate Court.
7) This Court has perused the record of both the Courts. There is nothing on law and fact on which this second appeal can be admitted for final hearing as it lacks any substantial question of law. All the factual and legal positions have been considered by both the Courts and nothing remains which can be answered by this appeal.
8) The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact is well defined by catena of decisions of Supreme Court. This Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the finding of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. See. Narayanan Rajendran and another Vs. Lekshmy Sarojni and others (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain Vs. Abdul Majeed and others (2011) 7 SCC 189, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH Signing time: 6/3/2024 4:43:05 PM 4 Uddin and another, (2012) 8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy Vs. Ramappa (2011) 1 SCC 158, Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288 and Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape (dead) by LR Vs. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare (dead) by LRs. and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 173.
9) For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of this judgment along with the record be sent back to the concerned Court.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE VSG Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH Signing time: 6/3/2024 4:43:05 PM