Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Savitri Bai vs Smt Rajkumari Sahu on 13 December, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SA-1118-2017
sh
(SMT SAVITRI BAI Vs SMT RAJKUMARI SAHU)
e
Jabalpur, Dated : 13-12-2017
ad
Shri Atul Anand Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellants.
Pr
Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1.
a Heard.
hy The appellant has filed the present appeal under section ad 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the M st judgment and decree dated 31/08/2017 passed by 1 Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Appeal of No.311/2016 by which while affirming the judgment and rt decree passed by the Trial Court, the first appeal of the ou appellant has been dismissed. Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for eviction, C arrears and mesne profit. According to plaint averments, h It is pleaded that father of the plaintiff namely late ig Shivlal Sahu was the erstwhile owner of the property in H suit and by virtue of the Will executed by her father in the name of her mother namely Smt. Summabai and in her own name, the plaintiff has become the owner of the property in suit and because she was earlier the joint owner with her mother Summabai, after her death, she because the absolute owner of the suit property. It is further pleaded that ground floor of the suit property defendant/appellant is running a shop which is bona fidely required by the plaintiff for her son for the purpose of opening of a âBhojnalayaâ for the sh purpose of convenience of the visitors who are staying in the Hotel and also for other persons for boarding and e ad lodging. Hence, present suit has been filed by the plaintiff.
The appellant/defendant by Pr filing written denied the plaint averments. It is submitted by the statement a hy defendant that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is hit by principle of res judicata. It is contended by the ad defendant that the plaintiff has filed the present suit on M the basis of false and fabricated documents and also of suppressing the real facts. It is also contended that the plaintiff is having sufficient and suitable place to open rt the Bhojnalay. The present suit has been filed by the ou plaintiff only to increase the rent of suit accommodation. C In this premises defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
h ig The trial Court after framing the issue and recording the evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that H the plaintiff has proved his case beyond reasonable doubts. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants/appellants filed first appeal before the first appellate court which was too dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31/08/2017. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31/08/2017 passed by the first appellate Court, the appellants/defendants have preferred this second appeal on the ground that the findings recorded by both the courts below is illegal.
sh Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the courts below have passed the impugned judgment and e ad decree without proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence as well as the material available Pr on record. It is also submitted that plaintiff did not plead that he has an alternate accommodation which are a hy situated in the locality and they are not sufficient for his business. The plaintiff has not proved his bona fide ad requirement of the suit shop. It is further submitted that M the plaintiff filed the present suit only to increase the of rent on pleading false statement and suppressing the real facts. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the rt appellant prays that while allowing this appeal the ou impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts C below may be set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. and h ig perused the judgment passed by the Courts below. From perusal of the record.
H From perusal of the record, I found that the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are well reasoned judgments and are based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Both the Courts below have not committed any error in recording the findings. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show that how the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for sh consideration in this appeal. The Supreme Court in number of cases has held that in e ad exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the findings of fact only if the Pr same is shown to be perverse and based on no evidence. Some of these judgments are Hajazat Hussain vs. Abdul a hy Majeed & others, 2011 (7) SCC, 189, Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012 (8) SCC 148 and Vishwanath ad Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, 2012 (7) SCC, M
288. of For the aforesaid reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails rt and is hereby dismissed.
ou (MISS VANDANA KASREKAR) C JUDGE h ig H ts Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2017.12.13 17:00:58 +05'30'