Sita Kumari vs Sanjhariya (Died) Thr. Lrs Bhola ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2763 MP

                                                        1
                            IN     THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                            ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                             SECOND APPEAL No. 851 of 2021

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.      SITA KUMARI W/O LATE SHRI BRAHASPATI
                                  PRASAD SAHU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                                  OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE,

                          2.      RAMESH KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI BRAHASPATI
                                  PRASAD SAHU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
                                  OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                  BOTH R/O VILLAGE BHABHAURA, P.S. MADA,
                                  TEH. AND    DISTT.  SINGRAULI (MADHYA
                                  PRADESH)

                                                                               .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI G.S. THAKUR, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.      SANJHARIYA (DIED) THR. LRS
                          (i)     B HOLA PRASAD S/O LATE SHRI BALDEV BAIS,
                                  AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

                          (ii)    SIPAHILAL S/O LATE SHRI BALDEV BAIS, AGED
                                  ABOUT 47 YEARS,

                          (iii)   JAWAHIRLAL S/O LATE SHRI BALDEV BAIS, AGED
                                  ABOUT 36 YEARS,

                          (iv)    NOHARI S/O LATE SHRI BALDEV BAIS, AGED
                                  ABOUT 51 YEARS,

                          (v)     SHIVBALAK S/O SHRI KAYARAM BAISWAR, AGED
                                  ABOUT 55 YEARS,

                          (vi)    RAMLALLU S/O SHRI SHIVDHARI BAISWAR,
                                  AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

                          (vii)   GHURAHU S/O SHRI SHIVDHARI BAISWAR, AGED
                                  ABOUT 59 YEARS,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
RONALD VICTOR
Signing time: 2/16/2023
5:07:11 PM
                                                        2
                                RESPONDENTS (i) TO (vii) ARE R/O VILLAGE
                                BHABHAURA, P.S. MADA, TEH. AND DISTT.
                                SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    SAHDEV S/O SHRI GAYADEEN SAHU, AGED
                                ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BHUIMAD, P.S.
                                SARAI, TEH. DEVSAR, DISTT. SINGRAULI
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
                                S I N G R A U L I DISTT. SINGRAULI (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY  SHRI   KAMLESH             TAMRAKAR,        PANEL      LAWYER       FOR
                          RESPONDENT/STATE)

                                This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

                          following:
                                                               ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 08/03/2021 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Headquarter Waidhan, District Singrauli in C.A. No.1500034/2015, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31/07/2015 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Waidhan, District Singrauli in C.S. No.47-A/2004, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants for declaration of title and restoration of possession against the defendants in respect of agricultural lands total area 4.60 hectare situated in Village Bhabhaura, Tahsil Singrauli and for declaring the sale deed dated 07/04/1999 to be ineffective, has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that Brahaspati was owner of the land in question and the plaintiffs are his wife and son (respectively) and the learned Courts below have without taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence erred in holding that they are not wife and son of deceased Brahaspati but they are wife and son of one

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 2/16/2023 5:07:11 PM

Chhunnu, however, learned counsel has failed to point out any documentary evidence showing the plaintiffs to be wife and son of Brahaspati. Learned counsel further submits that there is sufficient oral evidence, which proves that the plaintiffs are wife and son of Brahaspati. Accordingly, he prays for admission of the second appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. Learned both the Courts below have after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence specially the scholar register (Ex.D/9) held that the plaintiff 1-Sita Kumari and plaintiff 2- Ramesh Kumar (@ Vinay Kumar Vishwakarma) are wife and son of one Chhunnu Prasad Vishwakarma and have no relationship with the deceased Brahaspati.

Perusal of the judgment and decree shows that learned both the Courts below have in detail considered and appreciated the oral evidence for coming to the conclusion that there is no relationship among Brahaspati and the plaintiffs- Sita Kumari as well as Ramesh Kumar (@ Vinay Kumar Vishwakarma).

It is well settled that reappreciation of oral evidence in second appeal is not permissible, therefore, in presence of unrebutted documentary evidence and further there being no other documentary evidence in support of the plaintiffs' claim, it cannot be said that learned Courts below have committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and decree and in dismissing the suit of the

plaintiffs.

Resultantly, there being no involvement of substantial question of law, the second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.

Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 2/16/2023 5:07:11 PM

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE RS

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 2/16/2023 5:07:11 PM