Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nandar Singh vs Sakharam on 30 March, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 30th OF MARCH, 2022
SECOND APPEAL No. 427 of 2019
Between:-
1. NANDAR SINGH S/O CHANNU BARELA , AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
GRAM DAGADKHEDI TEH. BHIKANGAON
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHHAKIRAN S/O CHANNU BARELA , AGED ABOUT
47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O -
GRAM DAGADKHEDI, TEHSIL - BHIKANGAON,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DOGARSINGH S/O CHANNU BARELA , AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
R/O - R/O - GRAM DAGADKHEDI, TEHSIL -
BHIKANGAON, (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ROOPSINGH S/O CHANNU BARELA , AGED ABOUT
52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O -
GRAM DAGADKHEDI, TEHSIL - BHIKANGAON,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI Pankaj Ajmera Adv.)
AND
1. SAKHARAM S/O HAIDARIYA BARELA , AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
GRAM ROYGADH TEH. BHIKANGAON (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RUMALSINGH S/O HAIDARIYA BARELA , AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
R/O -GRAM - ROYGADH, TEHSIL - BHIKANGAON,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JAISINGH @ VIJAYSINGH S/O HAIDARIYA BARELA
, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O -GRAM - ROYGADH, TEHSIL
- BHIKANGAON, (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAMDAS S/O HAIDARIYA BARELA , AGED ABOUT
48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O -
GRAM - ROYGADH, TEHSIL - BHIKANGAON,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. GAJMAL S/O AMASYA BARELA , AGED ABOUT 47
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O -
Signature Not Verified
SAN
GRAM - ROYGADH, TEHSIL - BHIKANGAON,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2022.03.30 19:43:21 PDT
6. MUNNA S/O AMASYA BARELA , AGED ABOUT 42
2
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O -
GRAM - ROYGADH, TEHSIL - BHIKANGAON,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SHOBHARAM S/O AMASYA BARELA , AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
R/O -GRAM - ROYGADH, TEHSIL - BHIKANGAON,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. STATE GOVT. OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
KHARGONE DISTT. KHARGONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.C. Yadav Adv.)
This second appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
Counsel for the appellants heard on admission.
ORDER
1/ This second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 (for short "CPC") has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree
dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Bhikangaon, District - West
Nimar in Civil Appeal No.9/2017, thereby confirming the judgment and decree
dated 28.4.2016 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Bhikangaon on Civil Suit
No.1A/2016, whereby the trial Court has decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration
of title and permanent injunction.
2/ The respondents No.1 to 7/plaintiffs have instituted a civil suit inter-alia
claiming that they are in possession of the disputed agricultural land and using the
land since the time of their ancestors. They got the disputed land from their father
Haidariya in succession. Appellants/defendants are their distant relatives and
residents of village Dagadkhedi. Defendants are interfering in their possession
without any legal right, therefore, they have filed the suit against them.
3/ Appellants/defendatns have filed their written statement along with the
counter claim and further submitted that Haidariya had no right, title and interest in
the disputed land and he never possessed the disputed land. Plaintiffs did not get
the land in succession. Haidariya was maternal uncle of the appellants/defendants.
Father of the appellants Channu had purchased the disputed land from Limadi
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Telan in the name of his brother-in-law Haidariya but Haidariya had no right, title
Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH
over the suit property. Father of the defendants and afterward defendants are
SAVNER
Date: 2022.03.30 19:43:21 PDT
continuously openly and without any interruption in possession of the disputed
land and cultivating the land since last 60 years in the knowledge of the
respondents/plaintiffs and their father. Suit is time barred, therefore, plaintiff's suit
deserves to be dismissed and counter claim filed by the defendants to be decreed.
4/ On the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court has framed the issues and
permitted the parties to lead their evidence. Thereafter trial Court held that
appellants/defendants have failed to prove that they are owner of the suit land.
Appellants/defendants preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the
first appellate court. The first appellate court upon re-appreciating the entire
evidence placed on record affirmed the findings of fact so recorded by the trial
Court and dismissed the appeal, therefore, this second appeal has been filed by the
appellants.
5/ Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the judgment and
decree passed by both the courts below are illegal and it is not based upon the
proper appreciation of the evidence. Both the courts below have failed to consider
the oral as well as the documentary evidence produced by the parties. It is also
argued that trial Court has committed error in dismissing the suit preferred by the
plaintiffs. Both the courts below have ignored the pleadings made by the appellant.
First appellate court has not considered the documentary evidence Ex.D/1 & D/2
produced by the appellants before the trial Court. Both the courts below have not
legally and properly appreciated the pleadings and evidence and illegally decreed
the suit of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim of the defendants.
Therefore, findings of both the courts below are perverse, which is against the
evidence available on record. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid he submitted that
present appeal deserves to be allowed.
6/ Learned counsel for both the parties heard at length and gone through
the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below and also perused the
entire record.
7/ First of all it is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that Channu,
Signature Not Verified
SAN
father of appellant No.1, had purchased the suit land in the name of his brother-in-
Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH
law Haidariya from Limadi Telan but this material fact is not proved by any witness
SAVNER
Date: 2022.03.30 19:43:21 PDT
or any relevant document. Although appellants/defendants have proved Khasra
(Ex.P/1 & P/2) in support of their contention but possession of Channu was not
mentioned in both the documents. Plaintiffs have also proved Panchshala Khasra
of the suit property (Ex.P/2) and Kistbandi Khatoni (Ex.P/3) for the period 2013
and 2014 but in the said document possession of Channu was not mentioned.
8/ Counsel for the appellants contended that appellants are continuously
openly and without any interruption in possession of the suit property and they are
cultivating the suit property since last 60 years in the knowledge of the
respondents/plaintiffs and their father but appellants did not file and prove relevant
Panchshala Khasra of the suit property over the period of last 60 years, therefore,
this fact is not proved that appellants/defendants are in possession of the suit land
since last 60 years.
9/ In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are well
reasoned and are based on due appreciation of oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record. The findings recorded by the courts below are
concurrent findings of fact.
10/ Learned counsel for appellants has failed to show that how the findings
of fact recorded by the courts below are illegal, perverse or based upon no
evidence. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the
present second appeal.
11/ The Supreme court in number of cases has held that in exercise of
powers under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court can interfere
with the findings of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse and based upon
no evidence. Some of these judgments are Hafazat Hussan Vs. Abdul Majeed and
others, 2011(7) SCC 189, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012(8) SCC 148
and Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agralwal 2912(7) SCC 288.
12/ For the aforesaid reasons, no substantial questions of law arises for
consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
Signature Not Verified
C.C. as per rules.
SAN
Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2022.03.30 19:43:21 PDT
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
trilok
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Date: 2022.03.30 19:43:21 PDT
