Latifan Bee vs Ahmad
2024 Latest Caselaw 27651 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Latifan Bee vs Ahmad on 1 October, 2024

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28835




                                                               1                                  SA-925-2020
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                           BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                                   ON THE 1 st OF OCTOBER, 2024
                                                  SECOND APPEAL No. 925 of 2020
                                    LATIFAN BEE W/O BASHIR MUSALMAN AND OTHERS
                                                         Versus
                                       AHMAD S/O GHISIJI MUSALMAN AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                 Appellants by Shri Jyoti Swaroop Dave - Advocate.

                                                                ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

The appellants - defendants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as the Code) being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 17.01.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.154- A of 2008 by Civil Judge Class-I, Jaora, District Ratlam (MP), which has been partly allowed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Jaora, District Ratlam (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal No.03-A of 2013 vide judgment dated 19.12.2019.

2. The trial Court had dismissed the suit for permanent injunction with

regard to disputed lane / galiyara situated in southern side of House No.31, Untkhana, Jaora, District Ratlam (MP). When this judgment and decree was challenged by way of first appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, setting aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court held that the disputed galiyara is of joint ownership and possession of the present appellants and the respondents, with a further direction to the respondents to remove the wall constructed on eastern end of the galiyara and also directed that the present appellants in future will not

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:28835

2 SA-925-2020 obstruct the user of the aforesaid galiyara by the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned first Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective and has given relief to the respondents without there being a suit on their behalf, which is bad in law.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

5. It is settled law that if on re-appreciation of entire evidence, another view is possible, the findings of facts given by the Courts below are not to be easily disturbed. The findings recorded by the first appellate Court does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the record. Even this Court is not obliged to re-weigh / re-appreciate the evidence in second appeal. No substantial question of law appears to be involved in the instant appeal. There is no justification in

disturbing the findings recorded by the first appellate Court with regard to the uses of joint ownership and possession of the galiyara.

6. The present fails and is hereby dismissed.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

rcp