Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shekh Habib vs Shekh Ajmer 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. 1704 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHEKH HABIB S/O LATE SHEKH SAFI MOHAMMAD,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:FARMER, R/O.
VILLAGE KHITAULI TEHSIL BARHI, DISTRICT KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
Plaintiff
(BY SHRI R.N.DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHEKH AJMER S/O LATE KADOM BAKSH, AGED
ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O. VILLAGE KHITAULI,
TEHSIL BARHI, DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT.ANISHA BEGUM W/O SHEKH SALEEM, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHITAULI,
TEHSIL BARHI, DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. M.P. STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR KATNI,
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Defendants
(RESPONDENT NO.3 BY SHRI RAJEEV PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 06-05-2024
20:06:41
2
passed the following:-
JUDGMENT
This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure
has been appellant/plaintiff against impugned judgment and decree dated
04.5.2023 passed by Principal District Judge, Katni in Regular Civil Appeal
No.23/2021 [Sheikh Habib Vs. Sheikh Ajmer and others] whereby the appeal
preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by affirming the judgment and
decree passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Barhi, District Katni dated 25.2.2021
dismissing the Civil Suit no.29-A/2018 [Sheikh Habib Vs. Sheikh Ajmer and
others] of the appellant/plainiff seeking relief of declaration of title, specific
performance of unregistered agreement dated 23.3.1999 and permanent
injunction in respect of suit property being Khasra No.1672, area 0.01 hectares,
situated in village Khitauli, Tahsil Barhi, District Katni.
2. It is undisputed between the parties that respondent/defendant No.1
is the father-in-law of respondent No.2/defendant No.2.
3 . Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was an
agreement but the defendant gifted the suit land to his daughter-in-law,
therefore, appeal is arguable and substantial question of law arise for
consideration and appeal is liable to be admitted on the proposed substantial
questions of law.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
record of the trial Court as also first appellate Court
5. The entire case of the appellant/plaintiff is based on unregistered
sale deed which does not convey any title to the appellant/plaintiff as correctly
held by the trial Court. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 (Sheikh Ajmer) at
the time of filing of the suit has been shown to be of 78 years. On 12.10.2018 at
the institution of suit and also in sale deed (Exhibit-P/6) to be of 76 years old.
The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 had sold the suit property to defendant
No.2 who is his daughter-in-law. Both the courts have perused the pleadings
and evidence adduced by the parties very minutely. The unregistered agreement
(Exhibit-P/1) is dated 23.3.1999. The suit was filed on 03.10.2018 whereas it
should have been filed within a a period of 03 years. The suit has come up after
about 19 years. The possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit land on
the basis of evidence brought on record is not proved. Therefore, no case is
made out for adverse possession.
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
