Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sumta Dhobi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 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 22nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 164 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. SUMTA DHOBI W/O LATE LOTAN SINGH
DHOBI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, GRAM KAUDIA TEHSIL
GADARWARA NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHIVSHANKAR S/O LATE LOTAN SINGH DHOBI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, GRAM KAUDIA, TEHSIL
GADRWARA NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KASHIRAM S/O LATE LOTAN SINGH DHOBI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, GRAM KAUDIA TEHSIL
GADARWARA NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BABULAL S/O LATE LOTAN SINGH BHOBI, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, GRAM KAUDIA TEHSIL GADARWARA
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MUKESH S/O LATE LOTAN SINGH DHOBI, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, GRAM KAUDIA TEHSIL GADARWARA
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
( BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH COLLECTOR
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHAKTI TRIPATHI - PANEL LAWYER )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 2/27/2024
6:50:15 PM
2
ORDER
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 27.11.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No.25-
A/2014 by Third Additional District Judge, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur
(M.P.); whereby learned Third Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal
and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2012 passed by First Civil
Judge Class-II, Gadarwara in Civil Suit No.135-A/2012 whereby the suit
filed by appellants/plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction
on the basis of adverse possession was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction on the basis of adverse
possession regarding suit property bearing Khasra No.41 area 0.798 acre
situated in Village Kodiya, Tehsil Gadarwara, Distt. Narsighpur (M.P.).
Learned trial Court after framing of the issues and recording of evidence
dismissed the civil suit on the finding that appellants/plaintiffs have failed to
prove their possession for the last 50 years, hence, adverse possession over
the suit property is 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 court
below erred in not granting the decree of adverse possession in the
light of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC ?
2. Whether the finding of the courts below that the appellants
have failed to prove that they are not in possession over the
disputed land is perverse ?
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 judgment of trial court that after considering the
pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and also after
marshaling the entire evidence, the issues involved in the case were properly
decided by the trial Court. Further, the appellate Court has affirmed the
findings of the trial Court and gave a finding that the appellants are in illegal
possession over the suit property as the appellants have produced Khasra
Panchshala only for the year 2001 to 2006 and 2011 to 2013. Since there is
no specific pleading by the appellants or proof of the date on and from which
they claim to be in exclusive, continuous and undisturbed possession over the
suit property, the findings of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court
cannot be considered to be 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. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration, hence, the
appeal is dismissed.
10. Cost of the appeal will be borne by the appellants themselves.
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
