Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkrapal Awasthi S/O Lakhanlal ... vs Sadhuram Awasthy S/O Late Khoobe ... on 14 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 14 th OF MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 972 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMKRAPAL AWASTHI S/O LAKHANLAL
AWASTHI (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS.)
SMT. VISHAKHA W/O LATE RAMKRAPAL
AWASTHI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, VILLAGE
NEGUA TAHSIL NAUGOUN DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEVENDRA KUMAR AWASTHI S/O LATE
RAMKRAPAL AWASTHI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE NEGUA TAHSIL NAUGOUN
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JITENDRA KUMAR AWASTHI S/O LATE
RAMKRAPAL AWASTHI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE NEGUA TAHSIL NAUGOUN
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT ARCHNA D/O LATE RAMKRAPAL AWASTHI
W/O PRADEEP CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NEGUA TAHSIL NAUGOUN
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SMT RACHNA D/O LATE RAMKRAPAL AWASTHI
W/O DIPENDRA CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NEGUA TAHSIL NAUGOUN
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SMT USHA D/O LATE RAMKRAPAL AWASTHI W/O
AWADHESH TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE NEGUA TAHSIL NAUGOUN
DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. KAILASH S/O LAKHANLAL AWASTHY, AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NEGUA TAHSIL
NAUGOUN DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. SMT. RAMKUNWAR AWASTHY W/O LAKHANLAL
AWASTHY (DECEASED THROUGH LRS.)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-05-2024
15:44:15
2
SMT RAMBAI W/O BHAGWATI PRASHAD D/O
LAKHANLAL AWASTHI R/O VILLAGE KUSHMA
MAHARAJPUR TAHSIL MAHARAJPUR DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI J.K.DIXIT - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SADHURAM AWASTHY S/O LATE KHOOBE
AWASTHY (DECEASED THROUGH LRS.)
KALICHARAN AWASTHY S/O LATE SHRI
SADHURAM AWASTHY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R / O VILLAGE DORIYA DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MAHENDRA AWASTHY S/O LATE SHRI
SADHURAM AWASTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE DORIYA DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHREEWATI D/O LATE SADHURAM AWASTHY
W/O SANTOSH PATERIYA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE SATRARI TAHSIL KULPAHAD
DISTRICT MAHOBA (UTTAR PRADESH)
4. SMT. SAROJ D/O LATE SADHURAM AWASTHY
W/O HARNARAYAN PATERIYA, AGED ABOUT 45
Y E A R S , R/O VILLAGE THURATH TAHSIL
KULPAHAD DISTRICT MAHOBA (UTTAR
PRADESH)
5. GANESH AWASTHY S/O LATE SHRI KHOOBE
AWASTHY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
NEGUA TAHSIL NAUGOUN DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
CHHATARPUR DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.6 BY SHRI PANKAJ RAJ - PANEL LAWYER )
Reserved on : 23.2.2024
Pronounced on: 14.05.2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 14-05-2024
15:44:15
3
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 by the appellants/plaintiffs under section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure against impugned judgment and decree dated
13.11.2021 passed by Additional District Judge, Nowgong, District Chhattarpur
in Regular Civil Appeal No.40-A/2011 [Ramkripak (sinced deceased through
LRs. Vs. Sadhuram and others] whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants
has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 30.7.2010 passed by the
Second Civil Judge Class-II, Nowgong, District Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.18-
A/2009 [Ramkripak (sinced deceased through LRs. Vs. Sadhuram and others]
dismissing the suit of appellants has been affirmed.
2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed civil suit against defendants seeking
relief of declaration of title in respect of suit property bearing Survey No.1363,
area 0.405 Are situated in village Naiguwan, Tahsil Nowgong, District
Chhatarpur and for prohibiting the defendants No.1 & 2 to interfere with the
possession of the appellants/plaintiffs and for permanent injunction to the effect
that defendants shall not transfer the suit property.
3 . The learned trial Court rejected the civil suit of the
appellants/plaintiffs and on an appeal preferred by them before the first
appellate Court the same has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and
decree.
4 . The appellants being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and
decree filed instant appeal on the grounds that between the parties there was
partition in respect of other properties and thereafter they possession of their
respective shares, however, by mistake the suit property was left out. It is also
submitted that names of defendants No.1 & 2 were also mentioned in the
revenue records but possession over the same is of the appellants/plaintiffs.
Therefore, in garb of no proper mutation the defendants are interfering with the
possession of the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the courts
have erred in recording findings against the facts and there is substantial
question of law involved in this appeal and it is liable to be admitted.
6 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the
record. Also considered the findings recorded by both the courts in their
judgment and decree. Both the courts on the basis of pleadings and evidence on
record gave findings on facts and law, which are just and proper.
7 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.
8. Thus, no substantial question of law arise for consideration in this
appeal. The same being sans substance stands dismissed at admission stage
itself.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
