Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishnu Singh vs Kamal Singh on 18 June, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 76 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
VISHNU SINGH S/O JAGDISH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE SUKHAKHEDI TEH.
MULTAI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF
(BY SHRI VIVEK AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. KAMAL SINGH S/O ARJUN SIGH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
2. PRAVEEN SINGH S/O KAMAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 34
YEARS
3. AADHAR SINGH S/O ARJUN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 56
YEARS
4. SMT. HEMLATA BAI W/O JIVAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 55
YEARS
5. SONAM D/O JIVAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
6. RAHUL D/O JIVAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
7. ASHU D/O JIVAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
8. GYAN SINGH S/O ARJUN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
9. MADAN SINGH S/O ARJUN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SUKHAKHEDI TEH.
MULTAI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR BETUL, DISTRICT
BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 6/19/2024
4:10:23 PM
2
.....RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS
(BY SHRI ASHISH KURMI - PANEL LAWYER )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 19.02.2024
Pronounced on : 18.06.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
1) The appellant/ plaintiff Vishnu Singh, at the outset, submits that his
party has lost in both the Courts. The case of the appellant/ plaintiff was
based on the Will but even after examining the attesting witness the Court
rejected the suit and also held that the suit was time barred.
2) Learned Third Civil Judge, Class II, Multai, District Betul dismissed
the suit of the plaintiff, suit No. 2A/2014 filed against the defendant
Kamalsingh and others vide judgment dated 30.10.2015 for declaration of
title regarding the suit property situated in village Sukakhedi, total land
measuring 9.962 hectares in full part and on 6.985 hectares for declaring
the title on 1/2 part along with declaring that sale-deed dated 16.12.1992
and 22.12.1992 as null and void and injucting plaintiffs by permanent
injuction to interfere in the possession and use of suit land by plaintiff,
details of Khasra Nos. are mentioned in paragraph 1 of judgment of trial
Court. On an appeal by the plaintiff, learned Second Additional District
Judge, Multai in Civil Appeal No. 52A/19 vide judgment dated 6.3.2020
dismissed the appeal.
3) During the course of arguments, the appeal was pressed on two
grounds as mentioned above.
4) Perused the record.
5) It is seen from the perusal of the record that plaintiff submitted that
there was a Will dated 21.06.1994 in favour of the plaintiff. It was
submitted that Santribai, wife of late Nepal Singh had willed the suit
property to him as she was issueless but defendants partitioned the suit
land on false ground and obtained a revenue order in favour of Indira Bai.
Reply of the defendant was that late Nepal Singh, husband of Santribai had
purchased the suit land from joint family income in his name, therefore,
Santribai and Indirabai, both were entitled.
6) On perusal of the record, it is seen that plaintiff witness No.2 Gulzar
Singh has not stated that Santribai had signed the Will before him,
although this witness admitted his own signature on Ex. P/3 but as per
Section 63 of Hindu Succession Act, he did not state anything about
Santribai signing the Will before him, therefore, the arguments of learned
counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff that execution of the Will was proved is
not correct. Even otherwise, plaintiff Vishnu Singh (P.W.1) in para 16 of
cross-examination admitted that Nepal Singh did not have any other extra
income besides agricultural income and regarding the statement that land
was purchased from the gold and jewellery received from father and
mother of Santribai, there were no pleadings of the plaintiff in the suit,
therefore, evidence without pleading cannot be accepted.
7) Regarding next argument that suit was dismissed as time barred
also, it is seen that plaintiff came to know about the sale-deed in the year
1994 as reflected in para 20 of the judgment of the trial Court on the basis
of pleadings and evidence, therefore, the suit should have been filed within
three years but the suit was filed in the year 2009. It is but to be noted that
Ex. P/5, order of S.D.O. Revenue, Multai bearing appeal No. 119A/6 year
93-94 (Smt. Santribai Vs. Kamalsingh and others) dated 21.11.1994 is
between both the parties, therefore, limitation for Santribai and Vishnu
Singh cannot be different and what limitation Smt. Santribai had that
would apply to anyone claiming through her, therefore, the appeal on this
ground is also not sustainable, therefore, no substantial question of law
arises on which this second appeal can be admitted.
8) The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact is
well defined by catena of decisions of Supreme Court. This Court in
exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can
interfere with the finding of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse
or based on no evidence. See. Narayanan Rajendran and another Vs.
Lekshmy Sarojni and others (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain Vs.
Abdul Majeed and others (2011) 7 SCC 189, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim
Uddin and another, (2012) 8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy Vs.
Ramappa (2011) 1 SCC 158, Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishnath
Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288 and Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape (dead)
by LR Vs. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare (dead) by LRs. and Others,
(2013) 7 SCC 173.
9) For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises
for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of this judgment along with the record be sent back to the
concerned Court.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VSG
