Arjun Singh Lodhi vs Jagdish Singh Lodhi
2025 Latest Caselaw 8534 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Arjun Singh Lodhi vs Jagdish Singh Lodhi on 29 April, 2025

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19604




                                                                   1                          SA-2541-2024
                                IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
                                                      ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2025
                                                   SECOND APPEAL No. 2541 of 2024
                                                      ARJUN SINGH LODHI
                                                             Versus
                                                JAGDISH SINGH LODHI AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                Shri Rajesh Awasthi - Advocate for the appellant.
                                Shri Mayur Gulatee - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

                                                                       ORDER

Heard on admission.

2. This appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31/07/2024 passed by Fourth District Judge, Damoh in Regular Civil Appeal No.34/2022 whereby affirmed the judgment and decree dated 23/03/2022 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.41- A/2018 passed by the Third Civil Judge, Class-II, Damoh (MP).

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that plaintiff has lost in both the courts.

4. On perusal of the record, it is seen that in para-5 of the plaint, plaintiff has stated that suit property belongs to his brother late Sahab Singh who died issueless. After his death, his widow Pan Bai was the owner and have title on the suit property. The suit was filed before the trial Court for declaration of title and permanent injunction for the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19604

2 SA-2541-2024 suit property, as property was Willed by late Pan Bai in favour of Jagdish and Amol Singh. Vide judgement and decree dated 23/03/2022, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

5. On an appeal, learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 31/07/2024 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court.

6. In the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant herein very fairly admitted that challenge should have not been made regarding capability of late Pan Bai to Will the suit property, but only that Will was doubtful.

7. After considering the arguments and perusal of record it seems that both the Courts have considered all the factual and legal aspects as per pleadings of both the parties, therefore there is nothing by way of substantial question of law on which this second appeal can be admitted.

8. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19604

3 SA-2541-2024 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.

9. 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.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

mc