Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhatar Singh vs Kheer Singh on 17 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 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 837 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
CHHATAR SINGH S/O KHEER SINGH PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, VILLAGE MOHAD TAHSIL KARELI,
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI G. S. BAGHEL - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. KHEER SINGH S/O KUNJILAL PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 69 YEARS
2. GOPAL PRASAD S/O KHEER SINGH PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 49 YEARS
BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHAD, TEHSIL KARELI
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR.
3. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI VIKAS JYOTISHI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 )
( MS. SHAKTI TRIPATHI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on admission.
This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved
by the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2017 passed in Civil Appeal
No.21/2016 by First Additional District Judge, District Narsinghpur
(M.P.), whereby learned First Additional District Judge dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2015 passed by
Third Civil Judge Class-II, District Narsinghpur in Civil Suit No.9-A/14,
whereby the suit filed by appellant/plaintiff for declaration of title and
permanent injunction was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding suit property
bearing Khasra No.54/1, 54/2, 173/1 total area 0.579 acre situated in
Village Mohad Bandobast No.490, PH.No.21/50 Tehsil Kareli Distt.
Narsighpur. Learned trial Court after framing of the issues and recording
of evidence dismissed the civil suit as found not proved, against which
appellant/plaintiff 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
judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below are
erroneous in law and on facts ?
2. Whether the learned courts below have rightly held that the
disputed property is self acquired property of respondent No.1?
3. Whether the learned courts below contrary to the evidence
of PW-1 Kheer Singh held that the appellant is not entitled for
decree as prayed by him ?
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 appellant and
perused the record and the impugned judgment.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Cost of the appeal will be borne by the appellant himself.
11. 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
