Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhanu Pratap Sharma vs Shri Nivas Sharma on 16 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 16 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 2239 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
BHANU PRATAP SHARMA S/O SHRI NIVAS SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O MAIN ROAD,
MAHAVEERPURA, MORENA, DISTT. MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ASHISH SARASWAT - ADVOCATE )
AND
SHRI NIVAS SHARMA S/O SHRI DWARKA PRASAD
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, MAIN ROAD,
MAHAVEERPURA, MORENA, DISTT. MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA - 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 appellant/defendant
against the concurring judgment and decree dated 8/7/2023 passed by Principal
District Judge, Morena in Regular Civil Appeal No. 17/2023 confirming the
judgment and decree dated 8/2/2018 passed by Sixth Civil Judge, Morena to the
Court of First Civil Judge, Junior Dikvision in in Civil Suit No. RCSA21-
A/2018. Plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction and recover of
possession and mesne profits was decreed.
2 . Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that
respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and
recover of possession pertaining to Municipal House No. 549/3 situate at Main
Road Mahaveerpura, Morena and mesne profits @ Rs. 1,000/- per month with
the averments that plaintiff was having two brothers Ram Gopal alias Suraj and
Satyanarayan. Ram Gopal was having no issue and therefore, vide registered
adoption deed dated 14/2/1996 his (plaintiff) son (defendant) was given in
adoption to Ram Gopal and thus defendant is adopted son of ram Gopal and
he is separated from the family of plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased suit property
through registered sale deed dated 17/3/1981 from previous owner Satyaranaran
Sahrma from self earned money and got his name mutated in review record and
took possession. Due to love and affection, plaintiff permitted defendant to
reside in the suit property and he is residing the suit property for last 15 years.
However, with mala fide intentions defendant started quarreling with plaintiff
and plaintiff also lodged reports in this regard before the Police; however, when
attitude of the defendant remained the same, the suit was filed as above.
3. Defendant filed written statement and denied all the plaint allegations. It
i s specifically pleaded that all the legal representatives of Dwarka Prasad
Sharma are not mentioned and he is a member of Joint HIndu Family. He never
resided separately with Ram Gopal. The suit property belongs to the Joint
Hindu Family and the sale deed dated 17/3/1981 is without consideration and
transaction. Facts about quarrel with ill-intentions were also denied.
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, decreed the suit.
5. O n appeal, the first appellate Court,while deciding the appeal framed
a s many as 4 questions and answered each question exhaustively with due
advertence to oral and documentary evidence on record. The first appellate
court has found that suit house is of exclusive ownership of plaintiff and is not
a property of Joint Hindu Family and defendant has not interest, title or right in
the property and therefore, also decreed that plaintiff is also entitled to get the
defendant evicted from the suit house and ultimately affirmed the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court.
6 . After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing 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 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
PRAKASH
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec8
65c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B807
SOLANKI
2A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B5
22, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
Date: 2024.02.20 10:44:06 +05'30'
