Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hisabi Chamar vs Kallu Bai on 7 August, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 SA-576-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 576 of 2021
HISABI CHAMAR
Versus
KALLU BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri P.Pareek - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.S.Sengar - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/Defendant No.1 who
has lost in both the Courts.
2. It is submitted that suit property was not the government property.
Both the courts i.e. trial Court as well as first appellate Court have failed to
appreciate the fact and legal position. There was no right of the plaintiff who
had re-married after the death of her husband.
3. Perused the record of both the courts as also perused the judgment
passed in Civil Suit No.35-A/2016 [Kallu Bai Vs. Hisabi Chamar and
another] by the trial Court on 19.3.2018, by which the suit of the plaintiff for
declaration and permanent injunction regarding suit property as mentioned in
paragraph 1 of the judgment has been decreed and the appeal filed by the
defendant has been dismissed by the first appellate Court in Regular Civil
Appeal No.21/2018 [Hisabi Chamar Vs. Kallu Bai and another] on
10.3.2021.
4. On perusal of the record it is seen that plaintiff filed the suit on the
ground that after death of her husband, namely, Tulla her name was entered
into revenue records but behind her back defendant-Hisabi Chamar by
unregistered Will got his name mutated and possession is still with the
plaintiff.
5. On the other hand, the case of defendant was that husband of the
plaintiff died in the year 2008 and after about 05 years she got remarried and
2 SA-576-2021
on the basis of Will in favour of Hisabi by Tulla, he got the land mutated in
his name.
6. It is seen that on the basis of pleadings of parties proper issues have
been framed. The trial Court correctly held that after Hindu Succession Act,
1956 a widow gets the property of her in her full right and her subsequent
marriage after death of her husband would not defeat her right as she is class-
I legal heir and hence, defendant has no right. The appellate Court has also
considered all the facts and legal position. Therefore, there is no substantial
question of law on which this appeal can be admitted.
7. 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 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.
8. Thus, from the aforesaid it is clear that both the courts have
meticulously appreciated the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence as
also the law and, therefore, there is no substantial question of law on which
this appeal can be admitted.
9. In the result, the appeal being sans substance is dismissed at
admission stage itself.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
3 SA-576-2021
