Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanchedi Lal Soni vs Bhupendra Soni on 1 May, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 01st OF MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 2157 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
KANCHHEDI LAL SONI S/O PARSADI LAL SONI, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O
VILLAGE JASO TEHSIL NAGOD, DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SHYAM KRISHNA MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BHUPENDRA SONI S/O LATE SANTOSH KUMAR
SONI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE JASO
TEHSIL NAGOD, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. KU. ARPNA SONI D/O LATE SANTOSH KUMAR
SONI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE JASO,
TAHSIL NAGOD, DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. KU.KALPNA SONI D/O LATE SANTOSH KUMAR
SONI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE JASO,
TAHSIL NAGOD, DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SMT. MITHILESH SONI W/O LATE SANTOSH
KUMAR SONI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE JASO, TAHSIL NAGOD, DISTT. SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. ANIL KUMAR SONI S/O LATE SANTOSH KUMAR
SONI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE JASO,
TAHSIL NAGOD, DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. BALENDRA KUMAR SONI S/O LATE SANTOSH
KUMAR SONI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE JASO, TAHSIL NAGOD, DISTT. SATNA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 01-05-2024
19:49:20
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR SATNA,
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI J.L.SONI - ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.7/STATE BY SHRI RAVINDRA RAJPUT - PANEL
LAWYER)
Reserved on : 17.2.2024
Pronounced on: 01.5.2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
passed the following:
JUDGMENT
This second appeal u/s 100 of CPC by the appellant/plaintiff has been
filed against judgment and decree dated 04.7.2019 passed by First Additional
District Judge, Nagod, District Satna in Civil Appeal No.38/2017 [Kanchhedi
Lal Soni Vs. Santosh Kumar Soni and others] whereby the appeal of the
appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2016
passed by First Civil Judge Class-I, Nagod, District Satna in Civil Suit No.39-
A/2013 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title, permanent
injunction and restoration of possession of suit house No.578, situated at Part
of 'Abadi Bhumi' No.432 situated in village Jaso, District Satna has been
affirmed.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that appellant/plaintiff filed a
suit against his son stating that he is owner of the suit property but one day
when he had gone out the defendants, who are family members and son of
Santosh Kumar Soni, had forcibly entered the said house. Therefore, the
appellant/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit. The defendants opposed the suit. The
issues were framed and after taking into consideration the evidence of
Kanchhedi Lal Soni (PW.1), Sarju Prasad (PW.2) and Ramratan Kushwaha
(PW.3) and on the basis of documents filed by plaintiff, namely, Exhibits-P/1 to
P/7 and on considering the evidence of the Santosh Soni (DW.1), Ramnath
Kushwaha (DW.2) & Nathu Prasad Soni (DW.3) and documents filed by the
defendants, namely, Exhibits-D/1 to D/8 the trial Court rejected the suit. On an
appeal by the plaintiff/appellant the first appellate Court affirmed the judgment
and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment
and decree. Hence, this second appeal.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the
courts erred in recording finding that plaintiff has failed to prove the title and
possession over the suit house. The appellant proposed substantial questions of
law in memo of appeal and also sought to propose substantial questions of law
by way of I.A.No.493/2024.
4. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant. It is seen from the record that all the questions
proposed in memo of appeal are questions of fact and the trial Court has not
granted decree on the basis of admission that no title document has been filed.
The appellate Court has also rightly affirmed the judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court.
5. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the
findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well
defined by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot
interfere with the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary
to material on record. [See: Narayan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy
Sarojini and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed
and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and
Antoher, (2012) 8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011) 1
SCC 158 Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC
288, Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare,
(2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and
Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264] The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
trial Court as well as first appellate court are based on meticulous appreciation
of evidence on record which by no stretch of imagination can be said, either to
be perverse or based on no evidence.
6. Thus, no substantial question of law arise for consideration in this
appeal. Hence, appeal being sans substance stands dismissed at admission
stage itself.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
