Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar Singh Tomar vs Smt Munni Devi on 8 August, 2024
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1 SA-2872-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 2872 of 2023
RAMKUMAR SINGH TOMAR
Versus
SMT MUNNI DEVI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
SHRI BHUPENDRA KUMAR MAHOUR - ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANT.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed by appellant/plaintiff
against the concurring judgment and decree dated 30.10.2023 passed by
Tenth District Judge, District Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 170/2019
confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2019 passed by 14th Civil
Judge, Class I, District Gwalior in Civil Suit No.14-A/2014. The suit filed by
appellant/plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction against the
respondents/defendants in respect of suit property has been dismissed.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that the
disputed property was purchased for the joint family in the name of
plaintiff's mother i.e. defendant No.1 -Munnidevi as per the registered sale
deed dated 19.08.2002. After purchasing the said property, a building was
constructed over it with the money of joint family and after the construction,
the plaintiff and the defendants are jointly residing in the disputed land. In
2 SA-2872-2023
order to avoid future dispute regarding land, a family arrangement deed
dated 25.05.2013 was executed between them. On the basis of said family
partition deed, the defendants were not ready for transfer of name and started
threatening to sell the suit land and evict the plaintiff. According to the
aforesaid family arrangement letter, the plaintiff and defendants No.1, 2 & 3
have 1/3-1/3 share separately in the disputed land. Therefore, on the basis of
aforesaid, suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff.
3. Respondents/defendants filed a written statement denying the facts
mentioned in the plaint and pleaded that the disputed land is a self-acquired
property of the joint ownership and possession of defendants No.1 and 2.
Defendant No.2 had withdrawn the money from his GPF and also took a loan
from a bank and bought the said property on her wife's (respondent No.1)
name. The defendants have also denied that they had executed the family
arrangement deed dated 25.05.2013 in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff is the son
of defendants, and he had got their signatures on the blank papers saying that
he has to take some loan. Therefore, suit filed by appellant/plaintiff for
declaration and permanent injunction is not maintainable and is liable to be
dismissed.
4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as
five issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court upon
detailed examination of evidence on the record, dismissed the suit.
5. On appeal, the first appellate Court, while deciding the appeal, again
re-appreciated the evidence brought before it and arrived at the finding of
extraneous consideration based on conjectures and surmises. The first
3 SA-2872-2023
appellate court found that the partition deed produced by appellant/plaintiff is
not a registered document and therefore, cannot be considered in evidence
and thus, held that the trial Court did not err in passing the impugned
judgment and decree, and thus, after re appreciation of evidence, upheld the
judgment of trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
6. After having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this
Court is of the considered 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, which in the opinion of this Court do not warrant any interference
under Section 100 of CPC. No question of law, much less substantial
question of law arises in this appeal. Admission declined.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
Adnan
