Madhya Pradesh High Court
Guntu vs Heeraman on 25 February, 2016
SA-2045-2005
(GUNTU Vs HEERAMAN)
25-02-2016
Mr. K.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellants.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. This appeal is by the defendants, who have lost in both the
Courts.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that
the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit inter alia on the
ground that he is the owner of the land admeasuring 6.10 acres, which was purchased by him in the year 1940-41 for a consideration of Rs.7/- and since then, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as owner thereof. It was further pleaded that on the commencement of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the Bhumiswami rights were conferred on the plaintiff. However, the defendants in collusion with the revenue authorities are trying to get their names mutated in the revenue records. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The defendants No.1 to 3 filed the written statement in which inter-alia it was alleged that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor is in possession of the suit land. It was denied that the plaintiff has purchased the suit in the year 1940-41 from the erstwhile Malgujar. It was further pleaded that defendants are in possession of the suit land as owner thereof for the past 20-25 years. The trial Court decreed the suit. The aforesaid decree has been affirmed in appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Courts below ought to have appreciated that the defendants had acquired title in respect of the suit land on the basis of adverse possession.
5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is evident that both the Courts below on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record and in view of the evidence of plaintiff's witnesses namely PW-1 Munnalal, PW-2 Babulal and PW-3 Yogendralal, has held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land for past about 50 years. The Courts below have also taken into account the revenue records as well as the rin-pustika while recording a finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as owner thereof. It has further been held in the revenue record filed by the defendants that the name of the plaintiff is shown to be owner of the suit land. The aforesaid 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 either be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. Even otherwise, the question of acquisition of title by adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact. The findings on the aforesaid issue have been recorded by the Courts below on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to dislodge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. It is well settled in law that this Court in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot re-appreciate the evidence even if another view is possible.
6. Even otherwise, 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 power 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 Sarojini and others (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain Vs. Abdul Majeed and others (2011) 7 SCC 189, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim 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 Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape (dead) by LR. Vs. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare (dead) by LRs. and others, (2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and others Vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(ALOK ARADHE) JUDGE