Smt. Shashikala Beohra vs Ashvani Yadav
2024 Latest Caselaw 12666 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Shashikala Beohra vs Ashvani Yadav on 6 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 06th OF MAY, 2024
                                                   SECOND APPEAL No. 773 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SMT. SHASHIKALA BEOHRA W/O MOOLCHAND
                           BOHRA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.527/80,
                           STATE BANK COLONY, CHAIRITAL WARD, TEHSIL AND
                           DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                                                                                                                 Plaintiff
                           (BY SHRI HIMANSHU SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.      ASHVANI YADAV S/O LATE RAJARAM YADAV,
                                   AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O JANKI NAGAR, EKTA
                                   CHAUK KE PASS, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.      BHAGWATI PRASAD ARGAL S/O RAGHUNATH
                                   PRASAD    ARGAL,     R/O MAKAN   NO.485,
                                   VYAVHARBAGH      GHAMAPUR,    JABALPUR
                                   (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                                                                                                              Defendants
                           (BY )
                                   Reserved on : 23.2.2024
                                   Pronounced on: 06.05.2024
                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
                           for pronouncement this day, JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
                           passed the following:-


Signature Not Verified
                                                                    JUDGMENT

Signed by: RAJESH MAMTANI Signing time: 06-05-2024 20:06:41

This appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against impugned judgment and decree dated 24.2.2021 passed by Twenty Fourth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.93/2016 [Smt.Shashikala Vs. Ashwni and another] whereby the appeal preferred by appellant has been dismissed affirming the judgment and decree passed by Fourth Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.178-A/2014 [Smt.Shashikala Vs. Ashwni and another] on 29.2.2016 dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed suit seeking relief of declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and permanent injunction in respect of suit

property bearing Plot No.23, area 1000 sq.ft. situated at Mouza Laxmipur, Cherital, District Jabalpur. The trial Court rejected the suit of the appellant/plaintiff. The rejection of suit by the trial Court was challenged by the appellant before the First Appellate Court which upheld the judgement and decree of the trial Court.

3. It is to be noted that respondent/defendant (Ashwini Yadav) also filed an appeal before 24th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur which was registered as RCA No.94/2016 [Ashwini Yadav Vs. Smt.Shashikala]. The said appeal was allowed by the first appellate Court by same common judgment and decree dated 24.2.2021.

4. This appeal by the appellant/plaintiff has been filed on the ground that both the courts have failed to see that the suit property is in the name and possession of Shashi Kala in the revenue records. She purchased the suit property from Bhagwati Prasad Argal (defendant No.2) who remained ex pate in the trial Court and also did not file written statement. It is also submitted that

appellant/plaintiff purchased the suit property from Bhagwati Prasad Argal who had an oral agreement with a firm, namely, M/s.Laxmi Colonizers. Therefore, impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained.

5 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the records of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court. It is seen that the suit of the appellant/plaintiff is based on an oral agreement to sale. Both the courts have very minutely evaluated the pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties as also the law on the subject. Both the courts have held that the disputed Plot No.23 was not available for sale. In fact, there is nothing on law and facts which have been overlooked by the both courts.

6. 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 courts below 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.

7 . In view of aforesaid, no substantial question arise for

consideration and admitting this appeal. In the result, the appeal being sans substance is dismissed at admission stage itself.

8 . Let records of the trial Court as well as first appellate court be sent back to the concerned courts alongwith copy of this judgment.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE RM