Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nandlal Patel vs Ramadhar on 19 February, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8097
1 SA-95-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 95 of 2024
NANDLAL PATEL
Versus
RAMADHAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudhanshu Kumar Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Prakash Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the respondent on caveat.
JUDGMENT
This appeal was heard and reserved for orders on admission on
03/12/2024.
2 . The Second Appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff whose suit
has been dismissed by both the Courts.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff submitted t h a t there was a Will in favour of the
plaintiff regarding suit property but the Courts below have failed to
appreciate the Will (Ex.P/17) dated 23/08/2005. It was further submitted
that if the trial Court or First Appellate Court had any doubt regarding
the genuineness of the Will, it ought to have called the report of Sub-
Registrar and verified the genuineness of the Will.
4. Perused the record.
5 . It is seen that suit of the plaintiff/appellant Nandlal Patel in
Civil Suit No. RCS-A/1300122/2016 (Nandlal Patel vs. Ramadhar &
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8097
2 SA-95-2024
others) for declaration of title and permanent injunction and for declaring
that in Revenue Case No.164/A-6/2013-14 order dated 29/10/2014 and
order of Additional Commissioner, Shahdol in Revenue Case No.
88/Appeal/2015-16 dated 11/08/2016 are null and void.
6. On an appeal, the learned First Appellate Court in RCA
No.48/2022 vide judgment and decree dated 11/12/2023 dismissed the
suit of the plaintiff.
7. On perusal of the record, it is seen that learned trial Court held
that Will in favour of the plaintiff by Sudhiyabai is not proved and the
reason given in the judgment of the trial Court is that Nandlal Patel (PW-
1) in para-22 of cross-examination has admitted that Sunderlal expired in
the year 1983. Ramsahodar has made a Will in his (appellant) favour
regarding suit property, on the basis of which he had filed a suit but that
suit was dismissed and appeal was also dismissed. In Para-23, he further
admitted that in Civil Court or appellate Court, he never mentioned about
the Will of Sudhiyabai. He himself stated that at that time Sudhiyabai
alive, therefore he did not mention the Will of Sudhiyabai. Sudhiyabai
made a Will on his name on 23/08/2005 and the suit regarding the suit
property was finally disposed of by the appeal in the year 2011. In Para-
24, he has also admitted that Sudhiyabai was not the sole owner of the
suit land; infact the co-owners were Sembai and Mantibai who later-on;
partitioned the property but there was no partition in the year 2005. He
also admitted that in Will (Ex.P/1), khasra number and measurement of
the land has not been mentioned. In Para-27, he further submitted that he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8097
3 SA-95-2024
received Will in the year 2012 and in the Will, his photo was annexed
but he fairly admitted that there was no seal and signature of the
Registrar on his photo and he does not know who signed on his behalf
(witness Nandlal Patel).
8. Tejmani Patel (PW-2) in his cross-examination in para-12 has
stated that Sudhiyabai had called him. She has purchased the stamp and
Will was typed in the stamp paper.
9. On perusal of the Will (Ex.P/17), it is seen that it is not typed
on the stamp paper, therefore, learned trial Court in deciding the issue
No.2 with regard to Will specifically in para-25 to 29 of the impugned
judgment after considering the evidence has correctly held that Will is
doubtful.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the view that no purpose would have been served by calling
the witness from the Registrar Office where the Will was registered.
Genuineness of the Will and its registration are two different legal
aspects. Even an unregistered Will can be acted upon if it is truthful and
proved accordingly.
11. On the basis of the records of both the Courts, there is no
ground to admit this appeal on any substantial question of law. All
facts have been considered and no ground or any substantial question
of law exists on which this second appeal can be admitted.
12. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere
with the findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8097
4 SA-95-2024
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 Ano ther, (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
on record which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be
perverse or based on no evidence.
13. In the result, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
trial court and first appellate Court on meticulous appreciation of
evidence available on record gave findings which cannot be
interfered. No substantial question of law arise in this appeal. Hence,
it is dismissed at admission stage itself.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
mc
