Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramdheen vs Gajodhar on 9 January, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:804
1 SA-2154-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2154 of 2018
RAMDHEEN AND OTHERS
Versus
GAJODHAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Deependra Mishra - Advocate for the appellants.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure by
the appellants- defendants who have lost in both the courts. Gajodhar filed
Civil Suit No.55-A of 2009 against Ramdheen. Learned Ist Civil Judge,
Class- II Loundi, district Chhatarpur vide judgment dated 14th December
2012 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for the suit property situated in village
Dhawari, district Chhatarpur for restoration of possession on the ground of
earlier possession but dismissed the suit for declaration of title.
2. Regular Civil Appeal No.78-A of 2015 was filed by the Ramdheen
and vide judgment and decree dated 29.6.2018 learned Ist Additional Judge,
Lavkushnagar, district Chhatarpur dismissed the appeal.
3. At the time of arguments, it was submitted that suit was time barred
but the suit was not dismissed. No relief for declaration of title was sought.
4. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
5. It is seen that wrong argument has been advanced before this court.
Infact by amending Para-12-A declaration of title has also been sought.
Therefore, the ground that title of declaration was not sought is incorrect.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:804
2 SA-2154-2018
Infact a bare perusal of the judgment of the trial court, it is seen that in Para-
1 of the judgment of the trial court itself, it is mentioned that declaration of
title is sought by the plaintiffs.
6. Regarding suit being time barred, it is seen that issue no. 4 was
framed by the trial court and learned trial court has dealt with the issue in its
judgment in Para-25 of the judgment and in his statement he has mentioned
that earlier where were proceedings between the parties before the court of
SDM under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and that dispute continued and court has
on the basis of pleadings and evidence held that cause of action arose on
3.2.2007 and the suit has been filed on 17.8.2007. Therefore, the suit was
within time. It is no argument that how the suit was time barred and what was
limitation for filing the suit.
7. All facts, pleadings and legal grounds have been considered by both
the Courts. On perusal of the record, it is seen that no legal ground appears
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 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. In view of above discussions, this appeal being sans merit stands
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:804
3 SA-2154-2018
dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
bks
