Smt. Gansi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16618 MP

                                                              1
                            IN       THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                                                ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                               SECOND APPEAL No. 466 of 2010

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    SMT. GANSI W/O TULLI CHAMAR, AGED ABOUT
                                 45 YEARS R/O GRAM DERI TEHSIL & DISTT.
                                 CHHATARUPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    TULLI CHAMAR S/O DILWA CHAMAR, AGED
                                 ABOUT    48  YEARS,   R/O DERI, DISTT.
                                 CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI DEEPENDRA KUMAR MISHRA - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR
                           DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH )

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI DINESH PATEL - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

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

This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed by appellants/plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 22.02.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.5- A/2010 by Third Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur (M.P.), whereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009 passed in Civil Suit No.4- A/2009 by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Chhatarpur (M.P.), wherein suit preferred by appellants/plaintiffs mutual transfer of their pattas with regard to suit land got dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:24:04 PM

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that Patta with regard to Khasra No. 1168 ad-measuring area 1.0 Hectare situated at Village Deri, Tahsil and District Chhatarpur was granted in favour of appellant No.1- Smt. Gansi; whereas Patta with regard to Khasra No.1168 ad-measuring area 0.541 Hectare and with regard to Khasra No. 1167 ad-measuring area 0.219 Hectare situated at Village Deri, Tahsi and District Chhatarpur was allotted in favour of Muniya Wd/o Baldua Chamar by Tahsildar vide order dated 30/06/1998 passed in Case No. 6-A-19(1)/97-98, however, prior to allotment of patta they had already on possession over the suit land. Muniya Wd/o Baldua Chama died leaving her sole legal representative namely appellant

No.2-Tulli Chamar. Thereafter, appellants/plaintiffs took loan of Rs.40,000/- from Government Bank Chhatapur for construction of well over the suit land for agricultural purpose. Later on aforesaid pattas were got cancelled, vide order dated 13/03/2002 passed by SDO, Naugaon, District Chhatarpur in Case No. 70/Appeal/2000-01. Being aggrieved with the said order the appellants have preferred Revision bearing registration No. 452/A-19/2000-2001 before Commissioner, Sagar, which also got dismissed vide order dated 23/07/2004. Later on the appellants preferred civil suit No. 4-A/2009 before the Court Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Chhatarpur for mutual transfer of their pattas.

3. Defendant filed written statement and denied all the plaint allegations. They further denied the prayer for mutual transfer of pattas between the parties.

4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed 5 issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon detailed examination of evidence on record, dismissed the suit.

5. On appeal, the first appellate Court, while deciding the appeal framed

Signature Not Verified as many as two issues and answered question exhaustively with due advertence Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:24:04 PM

to oral and documentary evidence on record. The first appellate Court has found that the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit land, therefore, no case for mutual transfer of their pattas is made out.

6. After having perused the judgments of both the Courts' below, this Court is of the view that the entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. The findings recorded by both the Courts' below are pure findings of facts and concurrent findings recorded by the courts below is not based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence nor it is shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

7. Let a copy of this order alongwith record of courts' below be sent back to concerning courts for information and necessary compliance.

(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE skt

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:24:04 PM