Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramsingh vs Dhanaram on 19 June, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SA-17-2012
(RAMSINGH Vs DHANARAM)
10
Jabalpur, Dated : 19-06-2018
Shri Praveen Chourasiya, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Pramod Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent no.2.
sh The appellants has filed the present second appeal e challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2011 passed by ad Ist Additional District Judge, Seoni, in Civil Appeal No.03-A/2011, Pr whereby while affirming the judgment and decree dated a hy 10.08.2010 passed in Civil Suit No.68-A/2009 by the trial Court, ad has dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.
M The appellants/plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit before the trial Court for declaration to the effect to cancel the name of of defendant no.1 recorded in the revenue record in respect of the rt ou disputed land.
C According to the plaint averments, the land bearing no.54 h area 20.46 acre from the year 1917 to 1954-55 having been ig recorded in the name of grand father Shyamlal and Vishnu, H vishnu father of the plaintiffs, and at the time of renumbering the new khasra numbers the name of their father Vishnu got recorded together with the name of defendant no.1 jointly in the revenue record. It is also pleaded that as the father of the plaintiff Vishnu was an illiterate villager while the father of the defendant was Patwari of the Patwari halka No.92 and taking the undue benefit of illiteracy of their father surreptitiously using the power and authority vested him the name of the defendant no.1 was got recorded in the revenue record. On moving application by the defendant for seeking partition of the land before the Tahsildar Seoni thereon by registering a case when the plaintiff were served with notice the said fact came to know then they moved application under Section 170 (Kh) of M.P. Land Revenue Code before the SDO which was dismissed, hence the present suit was sh filed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court.
e ad The respondent/defendant no.1 while denying all the Pr adverse facts set out in the plaint, filed written statement a contending therein that he and his father has not committed any hy forgery as there is no such document brought on record. His ad name has been recorded in the revenue record since the year M 1954-55 jointly and on coming in force the Malgurjari Unmoolan of Adhiniyam 1951 as per the provision all such a person have rt became owner of the land and at the time of such Adhiniyam the ou father of plaintiff Vishnu and Punaram had paid Jamabandhi to C Malgujar Kall Patel, since then by virtue thereof name of Vishnu h and defendant no.1 has been recorded in the revenue record, as ig H such since last 50 years, therefore, he is having title and possession of the said land.
The trial Court on the basis of the pleading of the parties framed as many as three issues for adjudication of the suit. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs could not prove their case. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred first appeal before the first Appellate Court which was too dismissed by the First Appellate Court while affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record. The findings recorded by both the sh Courts below are perverse and bad in law. He further submits e ad that the Courts below committed serious error of law and facts in Pr disbelieving the documents having legal and substantial to prove a the case of the plaintiffs which are supporting and corroborating hy the oral evidence. It is further submitted that the Courts below ad erred in law and fact in not seeing the ample aspects of the case M that defendant no.1 has failed to duly prove his title and of possession of the suit land as jointly, while the plaintiff has duly rt succeeded his case. He further submits that the trial Court did ou not properly appreciate the controversy involved in the matter and C it also did not appreciate the ocular as well as documentary h evidence available on record. He also argues that the finding ig H recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and without appreciation of evidence on record.
On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate supports the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. From perusal of the record, as well as the judgment and decree passed by both Courts below I found that the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are well reasoned and are based on proper appreciation of ocular as well as documentary evidence on record. The findings of facts as recorded by both the Courts below are concurrent findings which does not require any interference by exercising the power under Section 100 of the C.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that how the finding of facts recorded by the Courts below is illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. Thus, no sh substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
e ad The Supreme Court in number of cases has held that in Pr exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil a Procedure can interfere with the findings of fact only if the same hy is shown to be perverse and based on no evidence. Some of these ad judgments are Hajazat Hussain vs. Abdul Majeed & others, M 2011 (7) SCC, 189, Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012 of (8) SCC 148 and Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath rt Agrawal, 2012 (7) SCC, 288.
ou For the aforesaid reasons, no substantial question of law C arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is h hereby dismissed.
ig H Certified copy as per rules.
(MISS VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE Tabish Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD TABISH KHAN Date: 2018.06.20 16:04:07 +05'30'