Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishori Lal vs Swatantra Kumar on 30 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 30th OF MAY 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 107 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. KISHORI LAL S/O LATE KODU LAL KACHHI, AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O PURANI BASTI, ANUPPUR,
DISTRICT ANUPPUR, (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJU @ GOVERDHAN, S/O LATE KODU LAL
KACHHI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PURANI BASTI,
ANUPPUR, TAH./DISTRICT ANUPPUR, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. MUNNA @ NIEMAL, S/O LATE KODU LAL KACHHI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PURANI BASTI,
ANUPPUR, TAH./DISTRICT ANUPPUR, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DHANNU S/O MOTI LAL @ DADDI, AGED ABOUT
52 YEARS, PURANI BASTI, ANUPPUR, TAH./DISTT.
ANUPPUR, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI A.M. KHARE - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. SWATANTRA KUMAR, S/O KAMTA PRASAD
SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O
ANUPPUR, PURANI BASTI TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR ANUPPUR ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJEEV PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 5/30/2024
6:51:36 PM
2
..........................................................................................................................................
Heard on 11.03.2024.
Judgment delivered on 30.05.2024.
...........................................................................................................................................
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 has been filed by the appellants- defendants against
the concurrent findings given against the appellants. The ground of appeal is
that directions given by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.A.
No.2475 of 2016 were not complied with by the learned Ist Appellate Court.
The issue in respect of death of Nanchun Kachhi was wrongly decided by the
Court and against the appellants issue in respect of valuation and limitation and
possession of the suit property were wrongly decided.
2. The plaintiff- Swatrantra Kumar filed a Civil Suit No. 08-A/2012 in the
Court of learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Anuppur against Kodu Lal (deceased)
through legal representatives Kishorilal and others for declaration of title and
permanent injunction regarding suit property Khasra No. 33, area 0.275
hectare/0.68 acres situated in village Anuppur, Tahsil and District Anuppur.
3 . Between the parties, it was not disputed before the trial court that
Nanchun Kachhi was the original land owner of the suit property.
4. The trial court framed the issue whether the suit property was in the
ownership and possession of the plaintiff as the suit property was on patta with
Nanchun Kachhi, who expired before 1950 and thereafter his son - Gayadeen @
Daddi Kachhi and Motilal @ Duryodhan Kachhi were owners. On 14.7.1950,
the sons sold the suit land for Rs.300/- by registered sale deed to Rajeshwari
Prasad, son of Rewa Prasad, Jabalpur and handed over possession also.
Thereafter, on 28.03.1981, Rejeshwari Prasad sold the suit property for
Rs.1000/- through his power of attorney holder in favour of the plaintiff and he
became title holder and possession holder of the suit property.
5. It is further submitted by the plaintiffs before the trial court that in
Revenue Case No.56/A-6-A/2008-2009, the defendants illegally got name of
plaintiffs deleted from the revenue record and made a prayer to get the names of
defendants mutated in the revenue record. It was dismissed and appeal was
filed by the defendant no. 1 to the Court of SDO Court which allowed the
appeal on 27.4.2010 and remanded the case for enquiry which is pending in the
Court of Tahsildar. Thereafter, in the year 2012, from the month of January, the
defendant started threatening the plaintiffs to dispossess them, therefore the
suit was filed.
6. The defendants contested the suit and submitted that Nanchun Kachhi
was alive till 1975-1976 as reflected from the revenue records. He did not die in
the year 1950, but he died in the year 1976, therefore, all the sale deeds are
invalid and do not confer any right to the plaintiffs.
7. The trial court on a minute and detailed perusal of the pleadings and
evidence of both parties held that it is not proved that Nanchun Kachhi died in
the year 1976 and simply on the ground that his name continued in the revenue
records till the year 1976 even after twenty five years of his death, it cannot be
presumed that Nanchun Kachhi was alive and the factum of death of Nanchun
Kachhi is a different aspect and has to be proved separately.
8. It is further mentioned that defendant no. 1 - Dhannu Kachhi agreed in
the trial court during cross-examination that Nanchun Kachhi expired before
his birth. Therefore, the court correctly held that if some false sale deeds for
the sake of argument were executed during the life time of Nanchun Kachhi, he
would have objected but that is not the case, therefore, trial court has correctly
held that if the name of Nanchun Kachhi after his death continued in the revenue
records, that cannot be a ground to assume that he was alive in the year 1950.
9. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on merits.
10. It is seen that when the judgment of the trial court was delivered,
against that order, the appellants/defendants filed an appeal but in Civil Appeal
No.38-A/2015, vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2016, learned District
Judge, Anuppur remanded the case for reframing certain necessary issues and
thereafter to decide the suit. Against that order, miscellaneous appeal was filed
as M.A. No.2475 of 2016, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated
19.01.2016 set aside the order of learned first Appellate Court and directed the
learned Ist Appellate Court to frame fresh issue and decide the appeal in
accordance with law.
11. It is seen on perusal of the record that when the parties appeared
before the First Appellate Court, learned First Appellate Court has framed
issues by bifurcation of issue no.1 as reflected from the order-sheet dated
21.12.2016 and has bifurcated the issue no. 1 in three parts. Both the parties in
the First Appellate Court submitted that they do not want to give
fresh/additional evidence on any issue, as all issues related to their pleadings,
which were already on record and they have already given evidence and
accordingly the First Appellate Court disposed of the appeal on merits on
22.12.2016.
12. Therefore, it is seen that all the factual and legal aspects have been
considered by learned both the Appellate Courts and all issues have been dealt
with by the Courts in accordance with law. No substantial question of law
arises in this appeal on which it can be admitted.
13. 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.
14. This appeal is dismissed having no substantial question of law much
less a substantial question of law.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
bks
