Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar Gupta (Deleted) (A) Alok Gupta vs Smt. Manorama Agrawal on 27 May, 2024
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 27 th OF MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 582 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMKUMAR GUPTA (SINCE DIED) THROUGH LRs
(A) ALOK GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI RAMKUMAR
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
(B) SANCHAY GOYAL S/O LATE SHRI RAMKUMAR
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
(C) VIVEK GOYAL S/O LATE SHRI RAMKUMAR
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
ALL R/O RANGWALA BHAWAN, GAST KA TAJIYA,
LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH).
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI P.C.CHANDIL AND ANMOL KHEDKAR - ADVOCATES )
AND
SMT. MANORAMA AGRAWAL S/O ARVIND AGRAWAL,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, R/O
RANGWALA BHAWAN GAST KA JAJIA LASHKAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRAKASH BRARU - ADVOCATE)
(SHRI M.L.BANSAL - ADVOCATE THROUGH CAVEAT)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
T h i s appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed by
appellants/defendants against the concurring judgment and decree dated
11/2/2021 passed by 11th Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal
No.136/2018 confirming the judgment and decree dated 13/8/2018 passed by
8th Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 133-A/2013. The Suit filed
by respondent/plaintiff for eviction has been decreed.
2 . Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that
respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for for eviction against the original defendant /
Ramkumar Gutpa pleading that he is the owner of the suit property Municipal
House No. 30/1600 new No. 43/1092 situated at Gast ka Tajiya, Lashkar,
Gwalior in which appellant is a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- in ground
floor a commercial and in first floor as residential, meaning thereby, the tenancy
is composite. It is further pleaded in the plaint that appellant was inducted as
tenant by Smt. Bhagwati whose son Balkishan Rangwala after her death was
getting rent of the premises as such appellants were tenant of Balkishan. Said
Balkishan executed an agreement to sell with plaintiff and when he did not
executed the sale deed, on filing suit for specific performance, same was
decree and sale deed got executed on 29/9/2006 through court as on the basis
of such sale deed, she is owner of the suit property and she is in dire need of
suit property for bona fide requirement of her son and when even after issuance
of notice, the appellants did not vacate the suit premises, after following all legal
process, instant suit was filed.
3 Appellant/defendant filed written statement denying the plaint
allegations. It is specifically pleaded that original owner Bhagwati Devi sold the
suit property to one Shankarlal and he is tenant of Shankarlal. Balkishan was
having no right in the suit property to sell the same to plaintiff. By playing fraud
with the court, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, plaintiff
obtained the decree in her favour.
4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed as many as eight
issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon detailed
examination of evidence on record, decreed the suit.
5. On appeal, the first appellate Court,while deciding the appeal again re-
appreciated the evidence brought before it. The first appellate court found that
defendants failed to prove that after Bhagwati Devi, they are tenant of Shankarlal
and found the sell deed dated 29/9/2006 a genuine document and also found
that plaintiff is in need of suit premises for the business of her son and
therefore, held that the trial Court did not err in passing the impugned judgment
and decree, and thus, after re appreciation of evidence, upheld the judgment of
trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
6 . After having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this
Court is of the view that the entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. The
findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of facts which in
the opinion of this Court do not warrant any interference under Section 100 of
CPC. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this
appeal. Admission declined. Appeal is dismissed.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
JPS/-
JAI Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
PRAKASH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fc
bb05b9522a, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F
609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
SOLANKI
Date: 2024.05.28 10:08:46 +05'30'
