Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chokhelal vs Heirs Of Thannilal Late Bajilal ... on 20 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 20 th OF MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 822 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. CHOKHELAL S/O LATE BAJILAL, AGED ABOUT 51
YE A R S , WARD NO. 4 JUNNARDEV TEHSIL
JUNNARDEV DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. JHANKLAL S/O LATE BAJILAL, AGED ABOUT 56
YE A R S , RESIDENT WARD NO.4 JUNNARDEV
TEHSIL JUNNARDEV DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(M.P.) PRESENTLY RESIDING NANDBABA
COLONY NO.13 NEAR SHIV MANDIR BROGAON
SAUSAR DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.S. MAINDERATTA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. HEIRS OF THANNILAL LATE BAJILAL
(DECEASED) ASHISH S/O THANNILAL, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, WARD NO. 4 TEHSIL ROAD
JUNNARDEV TEHSIL JUNNARDEV DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUNITA W/O THANNILAL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDENTS WARD NO.4 TEHSIL ROAD
JUNNARDEV TEHSIL JUNNARDEV DISTRICT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. LATA D/O THANNILAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDENTS WARD NO.4 TEHSIL ROAD
JUNNARDEV TEHSIL JUNNARDEV DISTRICT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JYOTI D/O THANNILAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDENTS WARD NO.4 TEHSIL ROAD
JUNNARDEV TEHSIL JUNNARDEV DISTRICT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
MAURYA
Signing time: 22-05-2024
11:38:59
2
5. PINKY D/O THANNILAL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDENTS WARD NO.4 TEHSIL ROAD
JUNNARDEV TEHSIL JUNNARDEV DISTRICT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. POONAM F/O THANNILAL, AGED ABOUT 27
YEAR S, RESIDENTS WARD NO.4 TEHSIL ROAD
JUNNARDEV TEHSIL JUNNARDEV DISTRICT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DM OFFICE
C H H I N D WA R A DISTRICT CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on admission.
Appellant/defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
3.5.2023 passed in RCSA No. 13-A/2021 whereby learned trial court decreed
the suit for mandatory injunction. This judgment and decree has been affirmed
by First Appellate court vide judgment dated 19.2.2024 in RCA No. 16/20223
dismissing the appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the courts below
have failed to appreciate the evidence adduced in right perspective, even court
fees for the relief of possession has not been paid. Learned counsel for the
appellant has invited attention of this court towards para 9, 10 and 1 2 of the
trial court and also para 24 of the judgment of first appellate court and prayed
for admitting the appeal on the substantial questions of law as pointed out in
appeal memo.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
It is seen that both the courts have given concurrent findings of facts.
Findings are not shown to be perverse or contrary to the record. In case of
mandatory injunction court fees for relief of possession is not required. This
court is not obliged to re-appreciate the evidence in second appeal. No
substantial questions of law is involved. There is no justification in disturbing
the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the both the courts below.
The appeal sans merits, fails and is hereby dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Akm
