Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parsadi vs Ratiya on 14 May, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 14th OF MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1793 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
PARSADI S/O BHAIYA LAL AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT
1. 53 YEARS, VILL. CHHIPARI TEH. LIDHORA DIST.
TIKAMGARH MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. MUNNAU W/O PARSADI, AGED ABOUT 50
2. YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHHIPARI TEHSIL LIDHORA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI )
AND
RATIYA S/O BHAROSA DHIMAR, AGED ABOUT 44
1. YEARS, VILL. CHHIPARI TEH. LIDHORA DIST.
TIKAMGARH MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
BHAJJU S/O BHAROSA DHIMAR, AGED ABOUT 42
2. YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHHIPARI TEHSIL LIDHORA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
BHAGIRATH S/O BHAROSA DHIMAR, AGED ABOUT
3. 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHHIPARI TEHSIL
LIDHORA (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR DISTT-
4.
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 16.02.2024
Pronounced on : 14 .05.2024
2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
1. Learned counsel for the appellants/ plaintiffs has been heard
on admission of this second appeal on substantial question of law.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
he has lost in both the Courts. His argument is that whether on the
basis of Patta dated 18.4.2022, he is the owner of suit land bearing
Khasra No. 4/1/4, area 0.500 hectare and whether on the basis of
Khasra entries it should not have been held that he is the title owner
of the suit land.
3. Perused the judgment of the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 65-
A/2016 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Class I , Jatara,
District Tikamgarh whereby vide judgment and decree dated
28.06.2017, the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed on merit and
appeal filed by the plaintiff in R.C.A. No. 34-A/2017 has also been
dismissed on merit vide judgment and decree dated 5.3.2020 by the
learned First Additional District Judge, Jatara, District Tikamgarh.
4. On perusal of record and judgment, it is seen that plaintiff did
not file impugned Patta on which he claims title. Even otherwise
Patta never grants the title and regarding Khasra entries, they are
never the source of title, therefore, appeal has got no merit on which
it can be admitted on substantial question of law .
5. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of
fact is well defined by catena of decisions of Supreme Court. This
Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure can interfere with the finding of fact only if the same is
shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. See. Narayanan
Rajendran and another Vs. Lekshmy Sarojni and others (2009)
5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain Vs. Abdul Majeed and others
(2011) 7 SCC 189, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and
another, (2012) 8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy Vs. Ramappa
(2011) 1 SCC 158, Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishnath
Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288 and Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape
(dead) by LR Vs. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare (dead) by LRs.
and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 173.
8) For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of
law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is
hereby dismissed.
Let copy of this order along with the record be sent back to
the concerned Court.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VSG
VIKRAM
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH, ou=JABALPUR,
2.5.4.20=afd2c180ce36c68ca80439a3
b4e8bce7d44ce9ce04e8857290fcaa67
ff7fde68, postalCode=482001,
SINGH
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=FDD89E77C40EC11A8E
C3AAADEF0E2E7DAFEC93C010D5EFB
1CD4A15D8A674147A, cn=VIKRAM
SINGH
Date: 2024.05.14 18:37:18 +05'30'
