Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Kumar Shah vs Shiv Parasda Shah on 3 October, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50564
1 SA-1856-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 3 rd OF OCTOBER, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1856 of 2023
SANJAY KUMAR SHAH
Versus
SHIV PRASAD SHAH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Janak Lal Soni - Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. B.K. Vaishya - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Ms. Kanak Gaharwar - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
JUDGMENT
Arguments on admission were heard on 9.7.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant submitted that he has lost
in both the Courts. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The appeal of the
defendant was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, hence this
Second Appeal.
3. It is submitted that appellant/ defendant had purchased the suit shop
from the respondent/ plaintiff. The suit shop was allotted to respondent by
Northern Coalfields Limited. He purchased the suit property for
Rs.1,60,000/- by Ex. D/5 a notarized document.
4. On perusal of the record it is seen that suit bearing RCS-A/154/2015 was
filed by Shiv Prasad Shah S/o Ramlagan Shah against Sanjay Kumar Shah,
Parshuram Shah and Northern Coalfields Limited for getting vacant
possession of the shop No.6 i.e. suit property.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50564
2 SA-1856-2023
5. It was admitted by the parties that the suit shop was allotted to father of
the plaintiff Ramlagan Shah by respondent No.2 i.e. Northern Coalfields
Limited vide Ex. P/1. The suit was decreed by the learned Fourth Civil
Judge, Sr. Division, Singrauli vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2023.
Defendant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Principal
District Judge, Singrauli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 A/2023, judgment
and decree dated 18.07.2023.
6. After considering the arguments and perusal of the record, this Court is
of the considered view that in this case, the defence of the defendant from
the initial stage was not tenable. Father of the plaintiff namely Shiv Prasad
Shah was a licensee of this suit shop given to him by Northern Coalfields
Limited on account of acquiring his land along with service to one family
member. He or his sons could not have sold the suit shop or given possession
by document Ex. D/5 which is a notarized one, therefore, claiming the
possession or title on that basis cannot be allowed. Even otherwise, there is
no counter claim of the defendant. Further Ex. P/1 is an allotment letter that
whenever the suit shop is required it has to be handed over back by Shri
Ramlagan Sahu, therefore, this appeal having no substantial question of law
is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
7. Even otherwise, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50564
3 SA-1856-2023
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 a copy of this judgment along with the record be sent back to the
concerned Courts.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VSG
