Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Prasad Dahayat vs Bhurelal Kotwar on 29 June, 2015
SA-1002-2013
(JAGDISH PRASAD DAHAYAT Vs BHURELAL KOTWAR)
29-06-2015
Shri R.B.Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Devdatt Bhave, learned counsel for the respondents.
The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 28/09/2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagod District Satna in Civil Appeal No.9-A/2013 thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 18/02/2013 passed by the first Civil Judge Class-II Nagod in Civil Suit No.23-A/2010. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a civil suit for partition as well as for possession alleging that the maternal grandson of Lalua is entitled to have half share in the property left behind by late Lalua as he was survived by his two daughters namely Badki Bai and Chundwadi and as the appellants being the son of Badki, is entitled to half of the share in the property. It is further stated that the husband of Chunwadi i.e. the defendant No.2 Bhurelal has executed the false and fabricated Will in his favour on 11/01/1985, on the basis of which he got his name entered in the revenue records and claiming himself to be the owner of the property in suit. The appellant has, therefore, filed a civil suit for declaration the Will as null and void.
The respondents/defendants filed the written statement and stated that the mother of the present appellant i.e. appellant / plaintiff No.1 was the daughter of one Bhagwandas and the Badki Bai is the daughter of Bagwandas and Butubai and not of Lalua. The Court below dismissed the suit of the present appellants vide judgment and decree dated 28/09/2013.
After recording the evidence and framing the issues, learned trial Court has found that the plaintiff has failed to establish that Badki Bai is the daughter of Lalua and failed to proof that the Will is forged and fabricated. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants/ plaintiffs have filed an civil appeal before the first appellate Court and the appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 28/09/2013 dismissed the said appeal. Against the said judgment and decree, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal, inter-alia, on the ground that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is illegal and perverse.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have failed to see that there is sufficient evidence on record. It is established that the Badki Bai is the daughter of Lalua and therefore she also entitles for equal share with Chunwadi. The Will executed by the Chunwadi or her husband Bhurelal Kotwar is forged and fabricated Will, therefore he prays that the judgment passed by the Courts below are perverse and deserves to be set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record as well as judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.
From perusal of the record, I found that the findings given by the Courts below that the appellants have failed to proof that Badki Bai was the daughter of Lalua and has not produced any documents regarding the register of birth and death as well as school certificate and the certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation and the Court has therefore rightly disbelieved the statement made by the appellants that Badki Bai is the daughter of the Lalua. So far as Will is concerned, the appellants have failed to proof that the Will has forged and fabricated, they have not produced any evidence in this regard also and therefore the findings given by the Courts below are correct.
In view of the aforesaid, the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are well reasoned and are based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that how the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below is illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
The Supreme Court in number of cases has held that in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the findings of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse and based on no evidence. Some of these judgments are Hajazat Hussain vs. Abdul Majeed & others, 2011 (7) SCC, 189, Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012 (8) SCC 148 and Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, 2012 (7) SCC, 288.
For the aforesaid reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE