Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamleshwar @ Kammu Nai vs Latoreram Soni on 15 February, 2024
Author: Amar Nath Kesharwani
Bench: Amar Nath Kesharwani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 15th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1041 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. KAMLESHWAR @ KAMMU NAI S/O RAMMILAN @
THENI NAI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, VILLAGE
BUDHANPUR, P.S. KOTMA, TEH. KOTMA, ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DASRU S/O KALLU NAI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
VILLAGE BUDHANPUR POLICE STATION KOTMA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KAMLA S/O KALLU NAI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
VILLAGE BUDHANPUR POLICE STATION KOTMA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SUYASH TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. LATORERAM SONI S/O JAGANNATH PRASAD
SONI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
BUDHANPUR P.S. KOTMA TEHSIL KOTMA DISTRICT
ANUPPUR
2. KOMAL PRASAD SONI S/O JAGANNATH PRASAD
SONI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
BUDHANPUR P.S. KOTMA TEHSIL KOTMA DISTRICT
ANUPPUR
3. LALLURAM S/O SHYAMSUNDER BRAHMIN, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BUDHANPUR
P.S. KOTMA TEHSIL KOTMA DISTRICT ANUPPUR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 2/17/2024
10:43:58 AM
2
4. LALANRAM S/O SHYAMSUNDER BRAHMIN, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BUDHANPUR
P.S. KOTMA TEHSIL KOTMA DISTRICT ANUPPUR
5. GANESH PRASAD S/O SHYAMSUNDER BRAHMIN,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
BUDHANPUR P.S. KOTMA TEHSIL KOTMA DISTRICT
ANUPPUR
6. GYAN PRASAD S/O LATE SHYAMSUNDER
BRAHMIN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE BUDHANPUR P.S. KOTMA TEHSIL KOTMA
DISTRICT ANUPPUR
7. DINESH PRASAD SON OF LATE SHYAMSUNDER
BRAHMIN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
7.1 SMT. SARASWATI W/O DINESH PRASAD
BRAHMIN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE BUDHANPUR P.S. KOTMA TEHSIL KOTMA
DISTRICT ANUPPUR
7.2 MANISH MISHRA S/O DINESH PRASAD BRAHMIN,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, MINORS THROUGH THEIR
MOTHER SMT. SARASWATI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
BUDHANPUR P.S. KOTMA TEHSIL KOTMA DISTRICT
ANUPPUR
7.3 SANTOSH MISHAR S/O DINESH PRASAD
BRAHMIN, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, MINORS THROUGH
THEIR MOTHER SMT. SARASWATI RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE BUDHANPUR P.S. KOTMA TEHSIL KOTMA
DISTRICT ANUPPUR
8. JAGDEISHWAR PRASAD S/O HIRALAL BRAHMIN,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
BUDHANPUR P.S. KOTMA TEHSIL KOTMA DISTRICT
ANUPPUR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 2/17/2024
10:43:58 AM
3
9. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR DISTT. ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( MS. SHAKTI TRIPATHI - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.9 )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard on admission.
This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved
by the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2016 passed by Additional District
Judge, Kotma District Anuupur (M.P.), whereby learned Additional
District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree
dated 15.09.2011 passed by Civil Judge Class-I Kotma District Anuupur in
Civil Suit No.19-A/10, whereby the suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs for
declaration of title and permanent injunction was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding suit property
bearing Khasra No.1092 area 0.45 acre situated in village Budhanpur
Tehsil Kotma District Anoopur. Learned trial Court after framing of the
issues and recording of evidence dismissed the civil suit as found not
proved, against which appellants/plaintiffs preferred an appeal which was
also dismissed by the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the
impugned judgment present second appeal has been filed.
3. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the concurrent findings
of the trial court as well as the first appellant Court on the following
substantial question of law :
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
courts below were justified in not accepting the plea and fact of the
plaintiffs acquiring the title over the suit property on the basis of
adverse possession ?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the courts
below were justified in not decreeing the suit on the basis of
documents adduced before it ?
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned courts
below have wrongly dismissed the suit as well as appeal and findings
recorded by the courts below are perverse and against the evidence on
record. On the strength of above, it is submitted that substantial questions
of law, as mentioned in the appeal memo, arise for determination of this
Court and appeal be admitted for final hearing.
5. I have heard the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants
and perused the record and the impugned judgment.
6. It reveals from the record that after appreciating entire evidence on
record, learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has not found
proved that the appellants/plaintiffs remained in long peaceful possession
of the suit property and hence arrived at a finding that the
appellants/plaintiffs have not acquired title over the suit property on the
ground of adverse possession.
7. It reveals from the judgment of trial Court as well as First Appellate
Court that both the Courts have considered the pleadings of the parties and
evidence placed on record and after marshaling the entire evidence, the
issues involved in the case were properly decided by the trial Court as well
as First Appellate Court. There are concurrent findings of fact by both the
Courts. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show that those
findings are either contrary to record or perverse. Learned counsel for the
appellant is also not able to point out any substantial question of law which
needs adjudication in this Second Appeal.
8. In the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar
And Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 722 Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court
must satisfy itself that substantial question of law is involved and must
then formulate the question of law on which the appeal could then be
heard. It is also held that the concurrent findings of fact however erroneous
cannot be disturbed under Section 100 of the CPC.
9. In the case of Suresh Lataruji Ramteke Vs. Sau. Sumanbai
Pandurang Petkar & Others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 821 Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that a Court sitting in second appellate jurisdiction in
ordinary course, the High Court in such jurisdiction does not interfere with
finding of fact.
10. As discussed above, in view of concurrent findings of the fact, I find
no reason to entertain this appeal. Hence, appeal sans merit and is hereby
dismissed.
11. Cost of the appeal will be borne by the appellants themselves.
12. Let the record of the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court be
sent back to the concerned Courts alongwith the copy of this judgment.
(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE
@s
