Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munsha Kumhar vs Smt. Chhobi Bai on 8 January, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:631
1 SA-802-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 802 of 2010
MUNSHA KUMHAR
Versus
SMT. CHHOBI BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sandeep Koshta and Shri Z.M. Shah - Advocates for the
appellant.
Shri Ashok Kumar Pali- Advocate for the respondent No.1
ORDER
This case was heard and reserved for orders on admission on
13.11.2024.
2. This appeal is by the appellant/defendant No.2 against the reversal
of decree.
3. At the time of arguments on admission, it was submitted that the
trial Court in Civil Suit No.08A/2004 allowed ¼th share to the plaintiffs in
the suit property. Whereas learned First Appellate Court by judgment and
decree dated 22.04.2010 in Appeal No.09A/2010 held that plaintiffs are
entitled for 5/16th share in the suit property. It is further submitted there was
a Will in favour of the appellant/defendant dated 03.03.1969 (Ex.D/8), but
that has been disbelieved by both the courts.
4. Perused the judgment of both the Courts. Considered the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:631
2 SA-802-2010
arguments. It is seen that the judgment of the trial Court in Civil Suit
No.8A/2004 (Smt. Chubi Bai and others and Teeja Bai and others) was
delivered by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Shahdol on 19.04.2006
rejecting the counter claim of the defendant and holding that plaintiffs will
be entitled for ¼th (One fourth) share of the suit property. Appeal was filed
by the defendants wherein appeal was partially allowed and it was held that
plaintiff will entitled only for 5/16th share in the suit property which is
situated in village Sohagpur, Nagar Palika Ward No.11, District Shahdol.
Therefore, this second appeal.
5. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the trial Court has rightly
dismissed the counter claim of the defendants for the reason given in the
judgment and the same need not be reiterated here for the sake of repetition
but learned first Appellate Court rightly corrected the error and instead of
¼th (One fourth) share held the plaintiffs to be entitled for 5/16th share in
the suit property or not believing the will details reason have been given in
Paras 38-40 of the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court
which need not be reiterated. There is no substantial question of law, on
which the Second appeal can be admitted.
6. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:631
3 SA-802-2010
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 on record which by no stretch
of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based on no evidence.
7. 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 with. No
substantial question of law arise in this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed at
admission stage itself.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
NRJ
