Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Aruna vs Smt. Sarju on 25 April, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18973
1 SA-11-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 25th OF APRIL, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 11 of 2022
SMT. ARUNA
Versus
SMT. SARJU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakher Naveriya - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pramod Kumar Sahu - Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 6.
Shri A. Chaturvedi - Panel Lawyer for the State of M.P.
ORDER
Records are received.
2. Heard on admission.
3. This second appeal is filed by the appellant - plaintiff who lost in
both the courts.
4. Perused the judgment of both the courts. In Civil Suit No.31-A of
2013, vide judgment dated 28.11.2015 suit of the plaintiff relating to village
Batkakhapa, Tahsil Harrai, district Chhindwara for the suit land as
mentioned in para-1 of the judgment of the trial court filed for grant of
vacant possession and permanent injunction has been rejected.
5. On an appeal, learned first appellate court at Chhindwara in RCA
No.100002 of 2016 (Smt. Karuna Vs. Munnalal and others) dismissed the
appeal, vide judgment dated 16th November 2021.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on Issue No. 1,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18973
2 SA-11-2022
learned trial court has given a finding that he is owner of the Khasra No.
648/2, Rakwa No.2.264, but still the suit has been dismissed.
7. On the other hand, Shri Pramod Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for
the respondent nos. 1 to 6 by way of assistance to this court on being
permitted submits that boundaries are not ascertained. Therefore, the suit has
been rightly dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,
especially the Panchanama Ex. P-2 and Ex.D-1 in which it is mentioned that
alongwith revenue khasra there is no approved revenue map of the suit
property, meaning thereby that even if decree was granted in favour of the
appellant, he would never have been in a position to to execute the decree
decree would have been just a piece of paper as he could not get the
executed.
9. After arguing for sometime, Shri Naveriya, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the appeal may be admitted but on consideration of
the pleadings and evidence there is no substantial question of law on this
appeal can be admitted.
10. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18973
3 SA-11-2022
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.
11. For the reasons discussed above, this appeal has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
bks
