Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chaturbhuj vs Kishan Singh Rajput on 1 August, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 SA-1248-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1248 of 2021
CHATURBHUJ
Versus
KISHAN SINGH RAJPUT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saket Agrawal- Advocate for the appellants.
Shri R.K. Nema- Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Rajeev Pandey - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code
by the appellant-defendant, who has lost in both the Courts. At the outset, as
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that his party has
sold the entire suit property during the pendency of litigation and he is just
fighting for the new purchaser to whom appellant Chaturbjhuj has sold the
suit property.
2. On perusal of the record, it is seen that Kishan Singh (plaintiff) filed a
suit for specific performance of suit property situated in village Ramkhiria
Tehsil Shahpura District Jabalpur, Khasra No.443/2, area 04.80 hqs. against
Chaturbhuj on the ground that he had agreed to sale the suit property by
agreement dated Ex.P/1, a registered document and again by agreement P/2
confirmed the earlier agreement Ex.P/1 and out of the value of the land i.e.
Rs.3,30,000/-, in which Rs. 2,72,000/- were paid earlier to the defendant and
took further the amount of Rs.55,000/- and only consideration amount of
Rs.3000/- was left. The defendant Chaturbhuj admitted his signature on
Exs.P/1 and P/2 agreement but submitted that in the first instance, he took
Rs.1,50,000/- as loan from the plaintiff. Along with interest, it amounted to
2 SA-1248-2021
Rs. 2,72,000/- but instead of a loan document, it was titled as agreement for
sale. He further submitted that when he went to return the money of
2,72000/- again by fraud they got the document written as confirmation of
earlier agreement. It was also pleaded that this is a co-parcenery property, in
which his son and daughter are also entitled and sought dismissal of the
appeal.
3. Issues were framed. Trial Court recorded the evidence but found that
no proper pleadings/documents have been filed to establish that the suit land
was a co-parcenery property and on the basis of admission of defendant on
Ex.P/1 and P/2 as mentioned above, on over all consideration of the matter
allowed the suit by judgment dated 30.06.2017 (C.S.No.25A/17) and directed
the defendant to receive the balance payment of Rs.3,000/- and execute the
sale-deed. On an appeal by the defendant, the appellate Court dismissed the
appeal No. 113/2017vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.2020. At the time
of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of
U.N. Kirishnamurthy (since deceased) Thr. Lrs. vs. A.M. Krishnamurthy
passed in Civil Appeal No.4703/2022 (Arising out of SLP (C)19463 of
2018) decided on 12.07.2022 by the Supreme Court of India reported in
MANU/SC/0875/2022 and Panne Khushali and Ors.Vs. Jeewanlal Mathoo
Khatik and Ors passed in Civil Revn. No.125/1971 decided on 25.11.1975
by High Court of M.P. Bench at Gwalior (Full Bench) reported in
MANU/MP/0038/1976.
4. Perused the record and considered the arguments. It is seen that all the
facts including whether the property was co-parcenery. Whether any fraud
was played by the respondent/plaintiff has been considered by the trial Court
as well as learned First Appellate Court in detailed judgment, properly
marshalling, pleadings, the evidence and law in the the judgment. It is also
seen that suit property has been sold out by the appellant-defendant, in which
it is mentioned that no case is pending and no stay is granted but a party i.e.
defendant/appellant, who has lost in both the Courts and there was direction
for specific performance of contract, how he sold the property without
permission of the court is beyond comprehension and is almost, bordering
3 SA-1248-2021
on contempt or fraud but be that as it may be. The judgment of U.N.
Krishnamurthy and Panne Khushali (supra) do not help the case of the
appellant-defendant in the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned
above. In Para-3 of the plaint, plaintiff has specifically mentioned that he is
always ready and willing to carry out his part of the agreement and in the
facts and circumstances, in which, defendant-appellant at least admits that he
took loan from the plaintiff of Rs.1,50,000/-. It would be impossible to
presume that as per the pleading of the plaintiff Rs.3000/- was not available
with him. Regarding the judgment of U.N. Krishnamurthi (supra) it is
observed that, it is seen that due to the pleadings in this case in plaint, Para
No.3, this judgment is of no use to the appellant and regarding the judgment
of Panne Khushali (supra), it is seen that since no proper pleadings and
evidence was there by the defendant regarding co-parcernery nature of the
suit property, therefore, finding of the Court cannot be disturbed.
Accordingly, this appeal having no substantial questions of law and is liable
to be dismissed.
5. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the
findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well
defined by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot
interfere with the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or
contrary to material on record. [See: Narayan Rajendran and Anr. v.
Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul
Majeed and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and
Another, (2012) 8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011) 1 SCC
158 Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288,
Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare, (2013) 7
SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4
SCC 264]. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are
based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which by no stretch
of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based on no evidence.
6. Thus, in view above analysis, no substantial question of arises in this
appeal on which it can be admitted. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed
4 SA-1248-2021
at admission stage itself.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
K.S.
