Tofan Singh Dhakad vs Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Guna
2024 Latest Caselaw 4409 MP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4409 MP
Judgement Date : 15 February, 2024

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Tofan Singh Dhakad vs Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Guna on 15 February, 2024

Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney

Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney

                                 1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                  ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                  SECOND APPEAL No. 1822 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
TOFAN SINGH DHAKAD S/O SHRI DEV SINGH DHAKAD,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED SUB
INSPECTOR KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI PURANI
GALLA MANDI GUNA, R/O PURANI GALLA MANDI
PRANGAD TEH AND DISTRICT GUNA        (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                             .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI YOGESH SINGHAL - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI GUNA THROUGH
      SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI
      NANAKHEDI MANDI GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      COLLECTOR,    DISTRICT GUNA  (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER INCHARGE PURANI
      COLLECTORATE GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO. 1 BY SHRI S.P.JAIN - ADVOCATE )
(RESPONDENTS NO. 2 AND 3/STATE BY SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI - GOVT.
ADVOCATE)

      This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                  ORDER

This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed by plaintiff/appellant against the concurring judgment and decree dated 14/7/2023 passed by First

District Judge, Guna in Regular Civil Appeal No. 38/2020 confirming the judgment and decree dated 2/3/2020 passed by Third Additional Civil Judge, Class II,Guna in Civil Suit No. 238-A/2019. Plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction was dismissed.

2 . Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit with the averments that the plaintiff was retired from the post of Sub Inspector from the office of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Guna and being poor and landless on the question of Krishi UPaj Mandi, Samiti, SDO, Guna granted patta of the property situated at Cantt. Area Guna near old Galla Mandi, Shastri Pul and there is adjoining land of Krishi Upaj

Mandi Samiti near to this land of patta and on dispute of the same same and on the illegal proceedings initiated by the defendants for sending the plaintiff in jail and as defendants tried to vacate the property of the patta from the plaintiff the suit was filed.

3. After filing of the suit, defendants filed an application under Section 11 of CPC to the effect that earlier also plaintiff filed a suit vide Civil Suit No. 130- A/201 which got dismissed vide judgment dated 26/7/2001 and the Court found that the land is dispute is of the ownership of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and it is in possession of the land and the appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree vide Civil Appeal No. 105-A/2001, same got disposed of vide judgment dated 5/7/2003 holding that looking to the evidence available on record, plaintiff is not entitled to get relief of permanent injunction.

4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon detailed examination of evidence on record, dismissed the suit.

5. On appeal, the first appellate Court,while deciding the appeal framed

question and answered the question exhaustively with due advertence to oral and documentary evidence on record. The first appellate court has found that no error of law has been committed by the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree.

6 . After having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the 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. Appeal is therefore, dismissed.

(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE JPS/-

JAI       Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
          DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
          BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA



PRAKASH
          PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,

2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec86 5c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072

SOLANKI A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522 , cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2024.02.16 11:09:03 +05'30'