Kammodilal vs Smt. Sushila Bai Jain
2023 Latest Caselaw 7039 MP

                                                        1
                          IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                  BEFORE
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                               ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2023
                                           SECOND APPEAL No. 204 of 2020

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    KAMMODILAL S/O SHRI KHILAN PATEL, AGED
                               ABOUT   45    YEARS, VILL. JHILLA TEH.
                               RAHATGARH DIST. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    MEERABAI PATEL W/O LATE SHRI NARBADA
                               PRASAD PATEL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O
                               VILLAGE JHILLA, TEHSIL RAHATGARH (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....APPELLANT
                         (BY SHRI SHYAM YADAV - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    SMT. SUSHILA BAI JAIN W/O LATE SHRI
                               TULSIRAM JAIN, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, VILL.
                               JHILLA TEH. RAHATGARH DIST. SAGAR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    VIMAL KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI TULSIRAM JAIN,
                               AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE JHILLA,
                               TEHSIL RAHATGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    PAPPU @ ROOPMAL S/O LATE SHRI TULSIRAM
                               JAIN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                               JHILLA,  TEHSIL  RAHATGARH     (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         4.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. COLLECTOR
                               DISTT-SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI N.S. SOLANKI - PANEL LAWYER)

                               This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 5/2/2023
4:52:59 PM
                                                                2
                                                               ORDER

Heard on admission.

The appellant/plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree of the trial court dated 30.07.2019 passed in CS NO.146-A/2017. The Appellate Court judgment dated 19.11.2019 passed in RCA No.59/2019 is also called in question in this Second Appeal.

T he respondents/plaintiffs against the appellants/defendant No.1 and 2 for declaration of title, grant of vacant possession and permanent injunction regarding the land bearing Khasra No.979 (Old PH NO.116, Khasra No.606/3x)

area 20.02 Hectare. The trial court after framing the issues has allowed the suit, against which, an appeal has been filed and the appellate Court has also passed a detail judgment and decree after considering each and every aspect of the matter while dismissing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Courts below have not considered the oral and material evidence available on record. The learned Courts below have neither seen any demarcation proceeding concluded by the respondents/plaintiff nor submitted proper evidence to prove their plaint. The appellants/defendants specifically contended that they are in possession of the land Khasra No.979. Hence, it is required to be decided by this Court that whether both the Courts below have committed any error of law and fact while decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs.

F ro m a perusal of the record, it is seen that both the Courts have considered the pleadings of the parties and framed the issues on the basis of rival stand. After marshaling the entire evidence, the issues were properly decided by the Courts below. There are concurrent findings of fact by both the Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 5/2/2023 4:52:59 PM

Courts below suit is filed for declaration and injunction but defendant Kammodi (PW/1) has accepted in his cross examination that he is doing agricultural work by occupying 3 acres of land of the plaintiff and he has made unauthorized hut on the land of the plaintiffs about eight to ten days back and did not removed the hut even when the plaintiff asked. The findings recorded by the Courts below are neither contrary to record or perverse. No substantial question of law could be pointed-out which needs adjudication in the present second appeal. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, I find no reason to entertain this appeal.

The Second Appeal being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE DevS

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DEVESH K SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 5/2/2023 4:52:59 PM