State Of M.P. vs Dhanpa
2022 Latest Caselaw 16837 MP

                                                    1
                 IN         THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT GWALIOR
                                              BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                      ON THE 19 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                       SECOND APPEAL No. 475 of 2002

               BETWEEN:-
               STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR                   VIDISHA
               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....APPELLANT
               (BY SHRI SHIRAZ QURESHI - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/
               STATE)

               AND
               DHANPA (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.
               1. SIYARAM SON OF DHANPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
               R/O VILLAGE KULHAN DISTT. VIDISHA (MADHYA
               PRADESH).
               2. RAMKISHAN SON OF DHANPA, AGED ABOUT 48
               YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KULHAN DISTT. VIDISHA
               (MADHYA PRADESH).
               3. RAMLAL SON OF DHANPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
               R/O VILLAGE KULHAN DISTT. V I D I S H A (MADHYA
               PRADESH).
               4. SHYAMLAL SON OF DHANPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
               R/O VILLAGE KULHAN DISTT. V I D I S H A (MADHYA
               PRADESH).
               5. MOHAN SON OF DHANPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
               R/O VILLAGE KULHAN DISTT. V I D I S H A (MADHYA
               PRADESH).
               6. RAMCHARAN @ PAPPU SON OF DHANPA, AGED
               ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KULHAN DISTT.
               VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI K.N.GUPTA- SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. )

This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the Signature Not Verified following:

Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 20-12-2022                             ORDER
01:05:51 PM

This appeal is pending since 2002 for admission against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2001 passed in regular civil appeal No.365/2001 by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Vidisha, (M.P.), whereby, first appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 24.1.2001 passed in Civil Suit No.51-A/1999 by Civil Judge Class I, Kurwai, Distt. Vidisha, has been affirmed.

Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Dhanpa filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain land on the ground of adverse possession. The trial Court partly allowed the said suit. State against the said judgment & decree preferred first appeal which was dismissed

by the first appellate Court. Hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that plaintiff Dhanpa could not prove his case, despite that Courts below partly decreed the suit in his favour.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that their case is based on adverse possession and in this regard they pleaded and adduced evidence, oral and documentary. In rebuttal, State/defendant has not adduced any evidence so that their plea of adverse possession can be disbelieved.

Heard.

In second appeal under Section 100 of CPC, the scope of exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court is limited to the substantial question of law. Substantial question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent and answer to the same will have a material bearing as to the rights of parties before the Court. Existence of a substantial Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD question of law is sine-qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction under the Signing time: 20-12-2022 01:05:51 PM provisions of Section 100 of CPC. The second appeal does not lie on the

ground of erroneous findings of facts based on appreciation of the relevant evidence.

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Anjuman-EIsmail Madris-un-Niswan, (AIR 1999 SC 3067) has observed that the High Court should not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in a routine and casual manner by substituting its subjective satisfaction in place of lower Courts.

Accordingly, this second appeal against the concurrent finding of fact does not deserve to be allowed and accordingly it is dismissed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 20-12-2022 01:05:51 PM