Devkaran vs Ramesh Chand
2021 Latest Caselaw 6077 MP

                                                                         1                                SA-965-2021
                                             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                         SA-965-2021
                                                     (DEVKARAN AND OTHERS Vs RAMESH CHAND AND OTHERS)


                                    Jabalpur, Dated : 27-09-2021
                                           Shri M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.

                                           Shri Nishant Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent

No.2/State.

Heard on admission.

T he appellants/plaintiffs have filed this second appeal under Section

100 of the Code of Civil Procedure feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 03.07.2021 passed by Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.66/2018 affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2018 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.78-A/2016.

T h e appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit land on the ground of adverse possession. The trial court framed the issues and after trial has dismissed the suit. The appellate Court has also passed a detail judgment and decree after considering each and every aspects of the matter.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent No.1 was well known about the possession of the ancestral of the appellants but had not taken any action for dispossession of the appellants or their ancestors and therefore, by efflux of time, the appellants/plaintiffs got an absolute title over the suit land. Both the Courts below have erred in appreciating the fact that the appellants are in possession over the suit land since 1978. Hence, it is required to be decided by this Court that whether both the Courts below have committed any error of law while deciding the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs.

F ro m a perusal of the record, it is seen that the trial Court has considered the pleadings of the parties and framed the issues on the basis of rival stand. The First Appellate Court also has considered the evidence on Signature Not Verified SAN record and electricity bill/document regarding temporary electricity Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2021.09.30 11:01:46 IST 2 SA-965-2021 connection. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that no documentary evidence (revenue/khasra entry regarding possession over the suit land) has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs though they are claiming their possession over the suit land since 1978. Both the independent witnesses Devkaran (PW/1) and Goverdhan (PW/2) have been found

unreliable and there are khasra entries from the year 1979 till filing of the suit. Presumption under Section 117 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code is that entries made in the land records are presumed to be true unless they are rebutted.

In case of œGuruvachan Kaur Vs. Salikram, (2010) 15 SCC 530, it was held that it is settled law that, in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact, recorded by the first appellate Court which is the final Court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse, which is discussed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of œDamodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi and others, (2016) 3 SCC 78, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that even if the finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a question of law. The wrong finding should stem out of a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. The safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man's interference on the facts.

In view of aforesaid discussion and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not proper and legally justified to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on a pure question of fact. In Second Appeal, the re- appreciation of evidence and interference with the findings of fact is not permissible. This Court can interfere with the concurrent findings only when a Substantial Question of law arises. If the Courts below have neither ignored any material fact, nor has considered any inadmissible evidence, then this

Signature Not Verified SAN Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.

Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2021.09.30 11:01:46 IST 3 SA-965-2021 In view of the aforesaid, the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. In these circumstances, the appeal being devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE

sj

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Date: 2021.09.30 11:01:46 IST