Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Pyari Bai vs Narayan on 4 March, 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 4th OF MARCH, 2024
SECOND APPEAL NO. 133 OF 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. PYARI BAI W/O SHRI JIYAN, AGED
ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TELIWAT,
TEHSIL JUNNARDEO, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(M.P.)
2. MANGLU S/O JIYAN, AGED ABOUT 53
YEARS, OCCUPATION FARMER, R/O VILLAGE
TELIWAT, TEHSIL JUNNARDEO, DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
3. HARI S/O JIYAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION FARMER, R/O VILLAGE TELIWAT,
TEHSIL JUNNARDEO, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(M.P.)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI R.S. YADAV - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)
AND
1. NARAYAN S/O SHANKAR YADUVANSHI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 18,
SUKARI, TEHSIL JUNNARDEV, DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
2. SHIVJI S/O AMAAN YADUVANSHI, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 18, SUKARI,
TEHSIL JUNNARDEV, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(M.P.)
3. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH COLLECTOR, CHHINDWARA,
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI KARAN SINGH THAKUR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2, THOUGH SERVED.
SHRI ANOOP SONKAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.3/STATE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 12-Mar-24
7:33:05 PM
2
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 of 1908 being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23/08/2022 passed by
Additional District Judge, Junnardev, District Chhindwara (M.P.) in
Regular Civil Appeal No.27/2017, whereby learned Additional District
Judge dismissed the appeal filed by appellants/defendant Nos. 1 to 3
and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25/04/2017 passed by
Civil Judge Class-II, Junnardev, District Chhindwara (M.P.) in civil
suit No. 15-A/2016, whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff
for declaration of title in suit property and for grant of permanent
injunction against appellants/defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to restrain them
from alienating the suit property to defendant No.4/respondent No.2
Shivji or any other person was decreed in fvaour of plaintiff/respondent
No.1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff-
Narayan filed a civil suit for declaration of title in suit property and for
grant of permanent injunction against appellants/defendant Nos. 1 to 3
to restrain them from alienating the suit property to defendant
No.4/respondent No.2 Shivji or any other person was decreed in fvaour
of plaintiff/respondent No.1 before the trial Court.
3. Appellants/defendant Nos. 1 to 3 denied the averments
mentioned in plaint in their written statement and pleaded that on the
basis of forged sale-deed executed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1,
tried to encroach their land and plaintiff has filed this suit only to
harass the appellants/ defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Learned trial Court after
framing of issues and recording of evidence, decreed the suit in favour
of plaintiff/respondent No.1 by restraining the appellants/defendant
Nos. 1 to 3 to alienate the suit property to defendant No.4/respondent
No.2-Shivji or any other person, against which appellants/defendant
Nos.1 to 3 preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by affirming the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, against which present
second appeal has been filed.
4. Appellants/defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have filed this appeal
challenging the concurrent finding of the trial Court as well as First
Appellate Court on the following substantial questions of law :-
" 1. Whether, in this case the appellants have no
right to sold their land?"
5. Learned counsel for the appellants 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.
6. I have heard the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants
and perused the record and the impugned judgment.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. As discussed above, in view of concurrent findings of the fact
and in absence of any substantial questions of law, I find no reason to
entertain this appeal. Hence, appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
11. Cost of the appeal will be borne by the appellant himself.
12. 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 order.
(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE
skt
