Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kewal Ram vs Murat Singh on 27 December, 2016
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Regular Second Appeal No.253 of 2008
.
Judgment Reserved on: 23.12.2016
Date of decision: 27.12.2016
Kewal Ram ....Appellant-Defendant
Versus
Murat Singh ..Respondent-Plaintiff
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sandeep Sharma,Judge.
rt
Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr.Y.P. Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.B.C. Verma, Advocate.
Sandeep Sharma,J.
Instant Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.2.2008 passed by learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla in Civil Appeal No.43- S/13 of 2007/06, affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2005, passed by Civil Judge(Senior Division), Chopal, District Shimla in Civil Suit No.22-1 of 2005, whereby suit for recovery having been filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the `plaintiff') has been decreed.
2. Briefly stated the facts, as emerged from the record, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 2of Rs.27,000/- against the defendant in the Court of learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Chopal, District Shimla, stating .
therein that the defendant approached him and offered to purchase the apple crop in the apple season of the year 2004 from the apple orchard of plaintiff. Plaintiff further averred that deal was settled between plaintiff and defendant for full and final consideration amounting to Rs.1,01,000/- only. As of per plaintiff, defendant made payment of Rs.76,000/- to the plaintiff being part payment of the cost of apple crop but rt remaining balance payment of Rs.25,000/- was to be made after sale of entire apple crop in the market. Plaintiff further claimed that defendant had agreed in writing and had undertaken to make the remaining payment of the sale of apples in the market. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that defendant acknowledged the liability to pay the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- in favour of plaintiff on 31.8.2004 and beside above, defendant-appellant acknowledged the liability to make payment to the plaintiff on 11.7.2004, on which day he admitted the payment of Rs.11,000/- made by him to the plaintiff on 10.7.2004 and Rs.11,000/- earlier to 10.7.2004. Plaintiff further averred in the plaint that defendant-appellant acknowledged the liability to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-, being balance payment, payable to the plaintiff, which is still recoverable from the defendant.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 3Since defendant failed to make the payment within the stipulated period, plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.27,000/-
.
alongwith pending and future interest @ 8% per annum for one year i.e. w.e.f. 11th July, 2004 to 10th July, 2005.
3. Defendant by way of written statement refuted the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff as set up in the plant in toto by stating that he neither approached the plaintiff nor of offered to purchase his apple crop. He further stated that no deed was finally settled between him and plaintiff and as rt such there is no question of payment of Rs.27,000/- and remaining balance of Rs.25,000/-. Defendant also denied that he ever acknowledged the liability to pay the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff on 31.8.2004.
4. By way of replication, plaintiff reasserted his claim as set up in the plaint controverting the stand taken by the defendant in the written statement in toto.
5. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings learned trial Court below framed following issues:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of recovery of Rs.27,000/- as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
4. Relief."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 4
6. Subsequently, learned trial Court vide judgment dated 29.11.2005 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum .
of Rs.27,000/- and held him entitled for recovery of Rs.27,000/- from defendant with future interest @ 8% per annum from 11th July, 2004 to 10th July, 2005 till the realization of total decreetal amount with entire costs of the suit.
of
7. Appellant-defendant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court filed an appeal in the Court of learned rt District Judge, Shimla, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.43-S/13 of 2007/06. Further, fact remains that aforesaid appeal, having been preferred by the defendant, was dismissed, as a result of which, judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court came to be upheld.
8. In the aforesaid background, appellant-
defendant approached this Court by way of filing instant Regular Second Appeal praying therein for quashing and setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below.
9. This Court vide order dated 10.7.2009 admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial question of law:-
"Whether the findings recorded by the courts below in the absence of proof of execution and signatures of the appellant ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 5 on Exhibit PW-1/A and PW-1/B are sustainable in view of the fact that the first appellate court below itself has come to the conclusion that the engtries made .
in PW-1/A and PW-1/B have not been proved in accordance with Section 67 of the Evidence Act?"
10. Mr.Y.P. Sood, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable of in the eyes of law as the same are not based upon correct appreciation of evidence. Mr.Sood, while referring to the judgment rt passed by both the Courts below, contended that both the Courts below, while decreeing the further suit of plaintiff, mis-appreciated and mis-read the entire pleadings and evidence, as a result of which great prejudice has been caused to the appellant-defendant who successfully proved on record that at no point of time he had purchased apple crop of the plaintiff, as alleged in the plaint.
11. With a view to substantiate his arguments that Courts below have failed to appreciate that there has been complete variance in the pleadings and evidence led by the plaintiff, Mr.Sood strenuously argued that bare perusal of plaint suggests that respondent had specifically alleged that out of alleged amount of Rs.1,01,000/-, Rs.76,000/- were paid to him and Rs.25,000/- were agreed to be paid by the appellant lateron. But in evidence, respondent alleged that he had made payment of Rs.11,000/- in two installments;
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 6first of Rs.10,000/- and second of Rs.1,000/- and remaining amount of Rs.65,000/- was paid by the defendant on 10th .
July, 2004. Mr.Sood, while referring to the variance allegedly made by the plaintiff in the plaint as well as in the replication, contended that Courts below miserably failed to appreciate the material variance between the pleadings and proof and as such failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it of in accordance with law, as a result of which findings returned by the appellate Court are vitiated and cannot be rt allowed to sustain.
12. Mr.Sood, further contended that diary Ex.PW-
1/A and pages of the diary Ex.PW-1/B could not be relied upon by the Courts below while fastening the liability on the appellant, especially when entries made in the same were not proved in accordance with Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further argued that no transaction could be proved, if any, between the parties by placing reliance upon the aforesaid diary Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/B and no decree, whatsoever, could be passed by Courts below on the basis of self-created evidence. Mr.Sood, further contended that learned Courts below miserably erred in recording findings on the basis of inadmissible evidence i.e. diary Ex.PW-1/A. He further contended that contents of Ex.PW-
1/B were never proved to have been recorded at the instance ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 7 of appellant; neither the signatures of the same have been proved to be that of appellant. Since respondent-plaintiff did .
not lead any evidence as to in whose presence and when entries Ex.PW-1/B were made at the instance of appellant, no decree for recovery of amount as claimed in plaint could be passed against the defendant by the Courts below while placing reliance upon the aforesaid documents and as such of judgments passed by both the Courts below deserve to be quashed and set aside.
13. rt While concluding his arguments, Mr.Sood invited the attention of this Court to the observations/findings returned by first appellate Court that, "Though the writing and signatures of the defendant on 12.7.2004 have not been proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, yet it appears that this diary was maintained by the plaintiff in the regular course of business", to suggest that even first appellate Court was convinced that no reliance, if any, could be placed upon the writings and signatures allegedly made in Diary Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B by the defendant, but despite that, judgment and decree passed by trial Court was upheld, which clearly suggests that there is no application of mind by the learned first appellate Court while analyzing and examining the genuineness and correctness of impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. In the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 8 aforesaid background, Mr.Sood prayed that appeal may be accepted and the judgment and decree passed by the Courts .
below may be quashed and set aside.
14. In support of his contention Mr.Sood, also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. Bajrang Lal, 2014 (4) SCC 693, D.R. Rathna of Murthy vs. Ramappa, 2011(1) SCC 158 and Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another vs. Ram Pal rt Singh Bisen, 2010(4) SCC 491.
15. Mr.B.C. Verma, learned counsel representing the respondent supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Mr.Verma vehemently argued that bare perusal of the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below, nowhere suggests that the same are not based upon correct appreciation of the evidence available on record by the respective parties, rather, close scrutiny of same suggests that Courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and as such, there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, by this Court in the concurrent findings of fact and law returned by both the Courts below.
16. With a view to refute the contentions having been made by the counsel representing the appellant, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 9 Mr.Verma, invited the attention of this Court to the statements having been adduced on record by the plaintiff .
witnesses to demonstrate that apart from documentary evidence, Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/B, there was overwhelming evidence led on record by the plaintiff to prove that defendant had purchased standing apple crop of the orchard of the plaintiff and in this regard he had paid an of amount of Rs.75,000/- to the plaintiff and remaining Rs.25,000/- was agreed to be paid by the defendant after rt sale of the apple crop. He also refuted the contention put forth on behalf of Mr.Sood, learned counsel representing the appellant-defendant, that no reliance could be placed upon the documentary evidence i.e. Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B since it was not proved in accordance with law. As per Mr.Verma, both the Courts below rightly placed reliance upon the documentary evidence adduced on record by the plaintiff to conclude that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff on account of his liability to pay the balance sale consideration to the plaintiff.
17. Mr.B.C. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, supported the judgments passed by both the Courts below and vehemently argued that no interference, whatsoever, is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the fact ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 10 that both the Courts below have meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter. He also urged that scope of .
interference by this Court is very limited, especially when two Courts have recorded concurrent findings on the facts as well as law. In this regard, to substantiate his aforesaid plea, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and of Others, (2015)4 SCC 264.
18. Perusal of pleadings as well as evidence led on rt record by respective parties to substantiate their pleadings clearly establish on record that there was a deal between the plaintiff and defendant with regard to apple crop in the apple season of year 2004. As per deal, plaintiff sold entire apple crop in the apple season of year 2004 to the defendant for full and final consideration/costs of Rs.1,01,000/- only.
Plaintiff specifically stated in the plaint that out of aforesaid agreed amount, defendant made part payment of Rs.76,000/-, whereas remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- was to be paid after sale of entire apple crop in the market, which was agreed by the defendant in writing and he had undertaken to make the same good after sale of the apple in the market.
19. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid claim, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and reiterated the version ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 11 put forth by him in the plaint by stating that he sold the apple orchard to defendant in the year 2004 for a sale .
consideration of Rs.1,01,000/-. He further stated that out of agreed amount, an amount of Rs.76,000/- was paid to him by the defendant and remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- was agreed to be paid lateron. It has also come in his statement that Rs.11,000/- were paid in the month of June and an of amount of Rs.65,000/- was paid by the defendant on 10th of July. He also stated that he had made entry in his diary on rt 10.7.2004 and on 11.7.2004 it was acknowledged by the defendant that he has still to make payment of Rs.25,000/-
to the plaintiff. Plaintiff further stated before the Court below that on 31.8.2004, one deed was scribed by Jhinu Ram, wherein it was again agreed by the defendant to make payment of Rs.25,000/- to him. Plaintiff also stated before the Court that on 12.7.2005, he deposited an amount of Rs.65,000/- in shape of FDR in the bank at Jhiknipul. He also stated that since defendant failed to make balance amount of Rs.25,000/- to him, he filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest. During his statement, he also proved entry allegedly made by him as well as by defendant on 10th and 11th July, 2004 in his diary Ex.PW-1/A. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness, nowhere suggests that defendant was able to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 12 extract anything contrary to what plaintiff stated in his examination-in-chief. He specifically denied that no .
transaction to sell the Orchard to the defendant was ever entered into between him and the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,01,000/-. He also denied the suggestion that no payment of Rs.65,000/- was made by the defendant on 10.7.2004. He further denied the suggestion put to him by of the defendant that an amount of Rs.25,000/- is not outstanding against the defendant. Close scrutiny of rt aforesaid statement having been made by PW-1 clearly proves on record the contents of plaint having been filed by the plaintiff.
20. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid claim, plaintiff also examined PW-2 Sham Singh and PW-3 Jhinu Ram. PW-2 also corroborated the version put forth by the plaintiff with regard to sale of apple orchard to the defendant by the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.1,01,000/-. He also supported the version put forth by PW-1 that out of aforesaid amount an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid in advance in his presence. Similarly, in his cross-
examination, defendant was not able to extract anything contrary to what he stated in examination-in-chief, rather he specifically denied the suggestion put to him that no advance ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 13 payment of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
.
21. PW-3 Jhinu Ram admitted that he scribed document Ex.PW-3/A, wherein defendant undertook to make balance payment of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff. He admitted his signatures on the document Ex.PW-3/A encircled 'B'. He also admitted that defendant acknowledged of all the terms and conditions laid down in document Ex.PW-
3/A. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness also rt nowhere, suggests that defendant was able to extract anything contrary to what he stated in his examination-in-
chief. He also denied the suggestion put to him by the defendant that apples from the orchard of the plaintiff were not forwarded to the defendant and defendant was not an apple contractor. Aforesaid plaintiff witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 clearly proved the stand of the plaintiff that he had sold apple crop in the year 2004 from his apple orchard to defendant for a total consideration of Rs.1,01,000/-. Both the aforesaid witnesses categorically stated that an amount of Rs.75,000/- was received by the plaintiff as an advance payment, whereas remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- was to be paid by the defendant after sale of the apple crop. True, it is that to substantiate aforesaid claim, plaintiff also placed reliance upon documentary evidence Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 141/B and stated that in the month of June, 2004, defendant had made payment of Rs.11,000/- and on 10th July, 2004, .
he had made payment of Rs.65,000/-. Similarly, plaintiff also stated that he had made entry in his diary Ex.PW-2/A, wherein defendant acknowledged that he still to make payment of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff. As has been noticed above, that apart from documentary evidence, as discussed of above, plaintiff by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence in shape of PW-2 and PW-3 successfully proved on rt record that he had sold his apple crop to defendant for total consideration of Rs.1,01,000/-, out of which he received Rs.75,000/- in total and as such, it cannot be concluded by trial Court below, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, solely placed reliance upon entry made in the diary i.e. Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/B. Rather, plaintiff by way of leading oral evidence, as has been discussed above, successfully proved that there was deal between him and defendant with regard to apple crop in the year 2004 and just to substantiate his aforesaid claim, he placed reliance upon documentary evidence, which certainly corroborated oral version put forth by the plaintiff as well as his witnesses.
22. Apart from above, factum with regard to payment of Rs.65,000/- on 10.7.2004 stands duly proved ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 15 from the statement of PW-4 i.e. Incharge, H.P. State Cooperative Bank, Jhiknipul, who corroborated the version .
put forth by the plaintiff that on 12.7.2004 he deposited Rs.65,000/- in shape of FDR i.e. Ex.PW-1/D in the name of Murat Singh i.e. plaintiff. There is nothing in cross-
examination of this witness, which could be beneficial in any way to the case of defendant. Hence, this Court after of conjoint reading of aforesaid statements of plaintiff witnesses has no hesitation to conclude that plaintiff successfully rt proved on record that defendant owed him Rs.25,000/- as balance payment towards total consideration of Rs.1,01,000/- in terms of oral agreement entered into between him and the plaintiff.
23. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that oral evidence led on record was sufficient for courts below to conclude that defendant owed Rs.25,000/- to plaintiff on account of balance payment out of total consideration and reliance, if any, placed on record by the courts below, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff on documentary evidence as discussed above, is only of corroborative nature. If plaint of plaintiff as well as his statement made before the Court is read in its entirety, it nowhere suggests that entire claim of the plaintiff was based upon documentary evidence i.e. diary Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B, rather, same was entered in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 16 evidence in support of his claim which he otherwise proved successfully by leading cogent and convincing oral evidence.
.
To the contrary, if the written statement having been filed by the defendant as well as his statement is perused and examined carefully, it is total case of denial. He denied that no payment of Rs.65,000/- was ever made by him to the plaintiff. He also denied that he ever gave undertaking in of writing on 31.8.2004, 10.7.2004 and 11.07.2004.
24. Apart from this, defendant did not examine any rt witness in support of his aforesaid claim, whereas, plaintiff by leading convincing evidence ,as has been discussed above, successfully proved his claim as set up in the plaint.
PW-3 Jhinu Ram, who scribed document Ex.PW-3/A successfully proved on record that 31.8.2004 defendant Kewal Ram had acknowledged his liability to pay balance amount of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff. Cross-examination conducted upon the aforesaid witness, nowhere suggests that any suggestion was put to him that he had some motive to falsely depose against the defendant. Rather, in cross-
examination, he was put a suggestion that the plaintiff never offered his orchard to the defendant for sale which was specifically denied by PW-3 Jhinu Ram. There was no suggestion worth name with regard to document Ex.PW-3/A, which certainly compel this Court to conclude that on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 17 31.8.2004, defendant acknowledged his liability to pay Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff. Similarly, if document Ex.PW-
.
3/A is taken into consideration, it certainly gives support to the contention of PW-1 that he had made certain entries on 10th and 11th July, 2004, wherein defendant had acknowledged balance payment of Rs.25,000/- payable by him to the plaintiff.
of
25. This Court, with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of findings returned by the rt Courts below that "perusal of signatures of defendant appended in diary Ex.PW-1/A are similar to his signatures appended by him on the summons", also perused both the documents which clearly suggests that there is striking similarity between both the signatures allegedly appended by the defendant on both the documents. There cannot be any quarrel with regard to the observation having been made by the learned first appellate Court while rejecting the appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant that writing and signatures of defendant on11.7.2004 have not been proved in accordance with Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, but, as has been discussed in detail above, the aforesaid assertion/stand may not have any bearing on the other findings returned by the Courts below, which are otherwise based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 18 record by the plaintiff. Certainly record suggests that writings and signatures of the defendant, as contained in the .
documentary evidence Ex.PW-2/A, were not proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, but as has been observed above, plaintiff, apart from placing reliance upon aforesaid documentary evidence, successfully proved on record by leading oral of cogent and convincing evidence that he sold his apple crop to defendant for a total consideration of Rs.1,01,000/-, out rt of which he had received an amount of Rs.75,000/- from defendant. Since defendant was unable to shatter the testimony of aforesaid plaintiff witnesses, claim set up by the plaintiff could not be defeated merely on the averments contained in the written statement having been filed by the defendant.
26. At this stage, it may be noticed that case of the defendant was of total denial and he, apart from himself, failed to examine any witness in support of his claim. If defendant was seriously aggrieved with the assertion/claim of the plaintiff that defendant appended his signatures on the diary Ex.PW-1/A on 11.7.2004 and acknowledged balance payment, definitely he had option to move an appropriate application before appropriate Court of law for getting his signatures compared from the handwriting expert ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 19 or Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, but, unfortunately, there is nothing on the file suggestive of the .
fact that any steps were ever taken by the defendant in this regard. Similarly, if defendant was prejudiced with the observation, if any, made by the learned Court below while recording the statement of PW-1, he had remedy of assailing the same by way of appropriate proceedings before the of appropriate court of law.
27. This Court is fully satisfied that both the Courts rt below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. Since both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, which otherwise appear to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence, this Court has very limited jurisdiction/scope to interfere in the matter. In this regard, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma's case supra, wherein the Court has held as under:
"16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for reappreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 20 schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs' right cannot .
be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be of sustained."
(p.269)
28. Hence, this Court after carefully examining the rt evidence available on record has no hesitation to conclude that apart from documentary evidence Ex.PW-1/A, there was ample evidence led on record by the plaintiff to prove his claim and as such Courts below rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.27,000/- and there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgments having been passed by both the Courts below. Though writings contained in the document Ex.PW-1/B were not proved in accordance with Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, but, oral evidence led on record clearly corroborates the entries made in the diary Ex.PW-1/A. Substantial question is answered accordingly.
29. As far as judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant are concerned, this Court is of the view that the same are not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, especially in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP 21 view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma's case (supra). Moreover, this Court, while .
examining the correctness and genuineness of submissions having been made by the learned counsel representing the appellant, has perused evidence led on record by the respective parties, perusal whereof clearly suggests that the same have been appreciated in its right perspective.
of
30. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court is of the view that findings returned by the trial rt Court below, which were further upheld by the first appellate Court, do not warrant any interference of this Court as findings given on the issues framed by the trial Court below as well as specifically taken up by this Court to reach the root of the controversy, appears to be based upon correct appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. Hence, the present appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
31. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
December 27, 2016 (Sandeep Sharma)
(aks) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:49:34 :::HCHP