Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh vs Kamata Prasad on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1325
1 SA-1036-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
SECOND APPEAL No. 1036 of 2025
SANTOSH AND OTHERS
Versus
KAMATA PRASAD
Appearance:
Ms. Megha Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Reserved on : 20.11.2025
Pronounced on : 15.01.2026
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
2 ] This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity "CPC") has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2025, passed by learned Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Tarana, District Ujjain in Regular Civil Appeal No. 19/2024, reversing the findings the Judgment and decree dated 27.07.2024, passed by First Civil Judge, Junior Division, District Ujjain in Civil Suit No. RCS/61A/2022 wherein the Trial Court has decreed in favour of respondent/plaintiff.
3] The facts of the present case are that the respondent/plaintiff have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction with respect to the residential H.No. 127 area 1800 sq.ft. situated at Village - Nainavad, Gram Panchayat, Nainavad, Tehsil Tarana, District Ujjain. In the plaint, the respondent Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 15-Jan-26 6:43:07 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1325 2 SA-1036-2025 claimed to be owner and in possession of the property in question. The property in question has been purchased by the respondent from previous owner Shri Kailash Chandra vide registered sale deed dated 02.08.2013 and since then the respondent is in possession of property in question and residing there with his family. The said house was left open by the respondent for drainage of rainwater of the house (4' X 30') area is being referred to as a disputed land in the suit. The appellants/defendants wanted to illegally occupy the said disputed land and are trying to construct on it for which, they have constructed beam column on the spot and when the respondent stopped them, they have refused for the same.
4] The appellants have submitted their written statement and denied all averments made in the plaint.
5 ] The appellants/defendants also filed a Counter-Claim stating that the House No. 118 situated at Village Nainavad, Tehsil Tarana, District - Ujjain having with 29 feet and length 49 feet stating that the land owned by the defendants, wherein a request was made for grant the relief of permanent injunction.
6] Learned Trial Court framed the issues and after recording the evidence of both the parties, rejected the suit filed by the respondent and also rejected the counter claim filled by the appellants/defendants by judgment and decree.
7] Thereafter, respondent/plaintiff filed first appeal before District Judge, Ujjain. Learned First Appellate Court by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, has allowed by passing impugned judgment and decree dated 10.02.2025. Against which, present petition has been filed.
8] It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court is wrong, illegal and against the facts on record. Learned First Appellate Court has Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 15-Jan-26 6:43:07 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1325 3 SA-1036-2025 wrongly allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment passed by the trial Court on the ground that the defendant failed to produce the documents nor any evidence has been submitted that apart from 30X56 sq.ft. of land of plaintiff, the remaining 4 feet of land does not belong to respondent/plaintiff and the appellants/defendants have not submitted any document proving the ownership of their own title and possession of the land in question. The learned Appellate Court failed to consider that the failure of defendant to present a strong defence does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree and also failed to consider the panchnama (Ex.P/5) wherein it is mentioned that the demarcation of plaintiff's house was done in which area of 30X56 sq.ft.
9] Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that the Appellate Court erred in ignoring the cross examination of Ritesh Yadav (PW-2) where he has stated that he does not know the boundaries of the house situated on the disputed land and in para 5 of his statement, he has stated that generally people drain the water from front side of their house by sloping and no body leaves 4 feet space for the slope of water. He has further argued that learned Appellate Court also not appreciated the findings given by learned trial Court in para 18 and 27 of the judgment. Therefore, he has prayed that the present petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
10] Heard the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record available.
11 ] Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 27.07.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.61A/2022 dismissed respondent/plaintiff suit but Appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.02.2025 passed in RCA No.19/2024 allowed respondent/plaintiff appeal and reversed trial Court's findings and decreed respondent/plaintiff suit.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 15-Jan-26 6:43:07 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1325 4 SA-1036-2025 12] Therefore, the question arises as to when this Court can interfere with the findings of facts arrived at by first Appellate Court. In this regard, it is necessary to refer the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRs and others vs. Saraswati and Others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4601 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court in para 33(iii) has held as under:-
"33 (iii) The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with findings of facts arrived at by the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well - recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence;
(ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to "decision" based on no evidence", it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
1 3 ] Similarly, in the case of Gurnam Singh (Dead) by legal representatives and others Vs. Lehna Singh (Dead) by legal representatives, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :-
"13.1.......However, in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court, by impugned judgment and order has interfered with the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court. While interfering with the judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court, it appears that while upsetting the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the High Court has again appreciated the entire Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 15-Jan-26 6:43:07 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1325 5 SA-1036-2025 evidence on record, which in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC is not permissible. While passing the impugned judgment and order, it appears that High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that the High Court was deciding the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC and not first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain second appeal under Section 100 CPC after the 1976 Amendment, is confined only when the second appeal involves a substantial question of law. The existence of 'a substantial question of law' is a sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam (Supra), in a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the First Appellate Court, unless it finds that the conclusions drawn by the lower Court were erroneous being:
(i) Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the applicable law; OR
(ii) Contrary to the law as pronounced by the Apex Court; OR
(iii) Based on inadmissible evidence or no evidence It is further observed by this Court in the aforesaid decision that if First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. It is further observed that the Trial Court could have decided differently is not a question of law justifying interference in second appeal".
14] Likewise, in the case of Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) through Lrs vs. Sohan Lal (Dead) by LRs reported in (2000) 1 SCC 434 may also be referred to. Paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment is relevant and is under:-
"11. There are two situations in which interference with findings of fact is permissible. The first one is when material or relevant evidence is not considered which, if considered would have led to an opposite conclusion. This principle has been laid down Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 15-Jan-26 6:43:07 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1325 6 SA-1036-2025 in a series of judgments of this Court in relation to section 100 CPC after the 1976 amendment. In Dilbagrai Punjabi vs. Sharad Chandra [1988 Supple. SCC 710], while dealing with a Second Appeal of 1978 decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 20.8.81, L.M.Sharma, J.(as he then was) observed that "The Court (the first appellate Court) is under a duty to examine the entire relevant evidence on record and if it refuses to consider important evidence having direct bearing on the disputed issue and the error which arises as of a magnitude that it gives birth to a substantial question of law, the High Court is fully authorised to set aside the finding. This is the situation in the present case."
In that case, an admission by the defendant-
tenant in the reply notice in regard to the plaintiff's title and the description of the plaintiff as `owner' of the property signed by the defendant were not considered by the first appellate Court while holding that the plaintiff had not proved his title. The High Court interfered with the finding on the ground of non-consideration of vital evidence and this Court affirmed the said decision.
That was upheld. In Jagdish Singh vs. Nathu Singh [1992 (1) SCC 647], with reference to a Second Appeal of 1978 disposed of on 5.4.1991. Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) held:
"where the findings by the Court of facts is vitiated by non-
consideration of relevant evidence or by an essentially erroneous approach to the matter, the High Court is not precluded from recording proper findings."
Again in Sundra Naicka Vadiyar vs. Ramaswami Ayyar [1995 Suppl. (4) SCC Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 15-Jan-26 6:43:07 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1325 7 SA-1036-2025 534], it was held that where certain vital documents for deciding the question of possession were ignored - such as a compromise, an order of the revenue Court -
reliance on oral evidence was unjustified. In yet another case in Mehrunissa vs. Visham Kumari [1998 (2) SCC 295] arising out of Second appeal of 1988 decided on 15.1.1996, it was held by Venkataswami, J. that a finding arrived at by ignoring the second notice issued by the landlady and without noticing that the suit was not based on earlier notices, was vitiated finding. This was in Second Appeal of 1988 decided on 15.1.1996.
12. The second situation in which interference with findings of fact is permissible is where a finding has been arrived at by the appellate Court by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence which if it was omitted, an opposite conclusion was possible. In Sri Chand Gupta vs. Gulzar Singh [1992 (1) SCC 143], it was held that the High Court was right in interfering in Second Appeal where the lower appellate Court relied upon an admission of a third party treating it as binding on the defendant.
The admission was inadmissible as against the defendant. This was also a Second Appeal of 1981 disposed of on 24.9.1985".
1 5 ] From the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRs (supra), Gurnam Singh (Dead) by LRs (supra) and Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) through LRs (supra), it is settled position of law that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined strictly to cases involving a substantial question of law. Interference can only be done where the findings are vitiated by non-consideration of material or vital evidence, reliance upon inadmissible evidence, erroneous application of law, drawing of perverse or Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 15-Jan-26 6:43:07 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1325 8 SA-1036-2025 unreasonable inferences, or wrong casting of the burden of proof. A finding based on "no evidence" includes not only cases of total absence of evidence but also cases where the evidence, taken as a whole, is incapable of reasonably supporting the conclusion reached.
16] In the case at hand, it is found that the respondent stated that his plot admeasuring 30X60 sq.ft., out of which he had left 4X30 sq.ft. space on the north side while constructing the building, whereas the appellant/defendant alleged that the plaintiff's plot was only 30X56 sq.ft. and that the plaintiff's rainwater falls on the defendants' land. The main thing to be seen is what is the actual area of the disputed land.
17] In the registered sale deed (Ex.P/3), the area of the disputed land is mentioned to be 30 by 60 feet. In the certificate (Ex.P/2) and certificate (Ex.P/4) issued by Gram Panchayat Nainawad, Tarana, District Ujjain, the area of the disputed land is mentioned to be 30X60 (1800 sq.ft.). In the Panchnama (Ex.P/5), it is also mentioned that the boundary of the respondent/plaintiff's house was demarcated in which 30 feet area from east to west and 56 feet area from north to south was found, in the remaining 4 feet area the water from Kamta Prasad's sheet falls and the registry of Kamta Prasad's land was found to be 30 by 60 feet. Thus, it is evident from the registered sale deed and panchnamas that the area of the respondent/ plaintiff's house is 30X60 feet. Neither any attempt has been made by the appellant/defendant to refute the said documents nor any evidence has been submitted that apart from the respondent/plaintiff's 30 by 56 feet, the remaining 4 feet of land does not belong to the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant has also not filed any document regarding the ownership of the defendant.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 15-Jan-26 6:43:07 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1325 9 SA-1036-2025 18] The respondent title and possession of the disputed land is evident from the aforementioned documents and evidence. There is no credible evidence on record regarding the defendant's possession of the disputed land.
19] Before considering the legal position, in this regard, it is necessary to examine whether the plaintiff's title to the disputed land is being affected by the defendant's attempted encroachment of the 4 foot area. In the case at hand, the respondent acquires title to the disputed land through a registered sale deed (Ex.P/3) and the appellant has not refuted the documentary evidence which demonstrates the ownership of the respondent in respect of disputed land. Thus, there appears to be no cloud on the respondent's title.
20] Thus, if pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties and the impugned judgment passed by the first appellate court are considered, in the light of above legal principles/legal provisions reiterated in aforesaid judgments, then, in this Court's considered opinion, the findings of facts recorded by the first appellate court are not liable to be interfered with in the instant case and it cannot be said that first Appellate Court has ignored any material evidence or has acted on no evidence or the learned First Appellate Court has drawn wrong inferences from the proved facts. It is ascertained that the evidence taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the findings and findings are based on inadmissible evidence.
21] The impugned order has been passed after due consideration of oral as well as documentary evidence on record. The appellant has failed to show that how the findings of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court are illegal, perverse and based on no evidence etc. The learned first appellate Court has legally and rightly dealt with the issues involved in the matter and has recorded correct findings of fact.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 15-Jan-26 6:43:07 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1325 10 SA-1036-2025 22] For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, are not based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence nor it is shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed in limine.
23] In view of the settled legal position governing the scope of interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and upon careful examination of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of law. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity, misreading of evidence, or non-consideration of material evidence so as to give rise to any substantial question of law.
24] Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The judgment and decree dated 10.02.2025 passed by the First Appellate Court in RCA No. 19/2024 are hereby affirmed.
(ALOK AWASTHI) JUDGE Vindesh Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 15-Jan-26 6:43:07 PM