Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Pushpabai vs Pramod Mishra on 23 April, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18475
1 SA-1653-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1653 of 2024
SMT. PUSHPABAI AND OTHERS
Versus
PRAMOD MISHRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Jain - learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Akhilesh Upadhyay - learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.3/State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No. 12607/2024, which is an application filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 67
days in filing present appeal.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.
12607/2024 is allowed and delay of 67 days in filing the present
appeal is hereby condoned.
3. Also heard on admission.
4. Record of courts below received.
5. This appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure by the appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree 31/01/2022 passed in Civil Suit No.103-
A/2019 passed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18475
2 SA-1653-2024
Civil Judge, Junior Bench, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, whereby
the suit preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration of title,
for declaration of sale-deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of
defendant No.1 as null and void and also for permanent injunction of
the suit property as mentioned in para No.1 of the judgment of trial
Court was dismissed. First Appellant Court on an appeal filed by
the appellants/plaintiffs in Appeal No. 15/2022, vide judgment and
decree dated 20/01/2024 also got dismissed by affirming the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that as per
the contention of plaintiff No.7-Shyamlal Kirar-father of defendant
No.2, defendant No.2-Pradeep Kirar- husband of plaintiff
No.1/Pushpa Bai was minor at the time, when the property was
purchased. But, the said registry could not be produced in the trial
Court. It is further submitted that the defendant No.2 -Pradeep Kirar
was mentally ill and in support of his illness documents i.e. Ex. P/8
to P/10 have been filed. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the defendant No.2 is suffering from Mirgi. It is submitted that
since defendant no. 2 was drunker, therefore, taking advantage of
him, defendant No.1 got registered of suit property in his favour by
paying little amount in various installments.
7. Considered the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18475
3 SA-1653-2024
8. Main ground raised in this appeal so far as the illness of
defendant No.2 is concerned, it is not proved at all; whereas ground
regarding the property in the name of defendant No.2 on the basis of
Benami transaction or that at the time of purchased of suit property,
he was minor, therefore, he was having no right to execute the sale-
deed in favour of defendant No.1 as his father is still living because
documents regarding said sale-deed are not proved at all nor the oral
statements are proved. All factual and legal issues have been
considered by both the courts. There is nothing by way of substantial
questions of law, on which this appeal can be admitted.
9. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18475
4 SA-1653-2024
on record which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be
perverse or based on no evidence.
10. Thus, in view above analysis, no substantial question of
law arises in this appeal on which it can be admitted. In the result, the
appeal stands dismissed at admission stage itself.
11. Let record of the courts below be sent back to the
courts concerned alongwith the copy of this order.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
skt
