Rajkumar Sahu vs Sitaram Sahu
2024 Latest Caselaw 21292 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajkumar Sahu vs Sitaram Sahu on 6 August, 2024

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

                                                                   1                               SA-692-2021
                              IN         THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
                                                      ON THE 06th OF AUGUST, 2024
                                                     SECOND APPEAL No. 692 of 2021
                                                             RAJKUMAR SAHU
                                                                  Versus
                                                              SITARAM SAHU
                           Appearance:
                           Shri Samdarshi Tiwari - Advocate for the appellant.

                                                                   JUDGMENT

This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant who has lost in both the Courts.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant and respondent are father and son. The suit property was bought by appellant/defendant in the name of his father/respondent/plaintiff. Both the Courts have failed to properly assess this situation. As an alternative argument it was also submitted that the funds for purchase of property were

out of joint family property, in which, appellant had also share. It is also stated that possession was with the defendant, in which, the respondent/plaintiff has also his consent. It is also contended that no injunction could have been granted in view of sub-section (g) of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act.

3. On perusal of record of both the Courts it is seen that learned first

2 SA-692-2021 appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.36/2020 [Rajkumar Sahu Vs. Sitaram Sahu] vide judgment and decree dated 23.1.2021 has confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in Civil Suit No.61-A/2014 on 01.3.2017.

4. On perusal of the records including the pleadings, oral & documentary evidence it is seen that the suit property has been purchased from the Society and it is in the name of father of the appellant/defendant/Rajkumar Sahu. There is no worthwhile evidence on record, by which, it can be said that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for permanent injunction. Both the courts have properly appreciated the facts, pleadings and evidence on record. Therefore, therefore there is no substantial

question of law on which this appeal can be admitted.

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 Antoher, (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

3 SA-692-2021 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, there exist no substantial question of law in the instant appeal, on which, it can be admitted. Hence, this second appeal is dismissed at admission stage itself.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

RM