Tarun Kumar vs Smt Prem Bai( Since Dead) Through Legal ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6621 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Tarun Kumar vs Smt Prem Bai( Since Dead) Through Legal ... on 12 June, 2025

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25490




                                                                 1                           SA-1032-2024
                              IN        THE   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
                                                     ON THE 12th OF JUNE, 2025
                                                 SECOND APPEAL No. 1032 of 2024
                                          TARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS
                                                    Versus
                           SMT PREM BAI( SINCE DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS RAMKALI
                                                 AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                              Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain - Advocate for the appellants.

                                                                     ORDER

This case was heard and reserved for orders on admission on 02.04.2025.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs who have lost in both the courts.

3. It is submitted that both courts ignore the fact that Ex.P/20 to Ex.P25 name of the predecessor of plaintiff (Bharosa) was recorded, he never transferred the property but on the basis of Ex.D/1 (order) in which plaintiff was not a party, under Section 205 of the Rewa Land Revenue and

Tenancy Act, 1935 title was held in favour of defendant. It is submitted that Ex.D/1 was issued in 1958 but suit was filed in the year of 2005 as a plaintiff was in service outside and on his behalf Gokarni used to cultivate the land but admitted that Gokarni was not a party in the suit and neither he was produced as witness to prove the case of the plaintiffs.

4. Perused the record. the learned First Appellate Court vide

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25490

2 SA-1032-2024 judgment dated 06.03.2024 passed in RCA/12/2021 (Babulal and others Vs. Smt. Prembai deceased through LRs Ramkali and others) dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs and confirmed the decree of the trial Court. In Civil Suit No.RCS/92A/2015 (Babulal and others Vs. Vishnu deceased through LRs Smt. Prembai and others) vide judgment dated 24.03.2021 passed the 1st Civil Judge, District-Umaria, was dismissed the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs regarding declaration of the title and possession.

5. Perused the judgments. Considered the arguments. It is seen that in trial Court plaintiffs produced himself as a witness (PW/1) and Exhibited documents Ex.P/1 to P/23 and also examined Shivprasad Rajak (PW/2), Dumari Baretha (PW/3) whereas defendant Exhibited documents as Ex.D/1 to D/8 and Chait Singh (DW/1) examine himself and also examine Rohni

(DW/2), Dashrath Singh (DW/3).

6. After considering the pleadings of both the parties, issues evidence on record, judgment of both the courts and arguments before this court on admission, this court finds that in the facts and circumstance of the case no substantial question of law arises in this case, all factual and legal situations have been considered by both the courts, there is nothing by way of substantial question of law on which this second appeal can be admitted.

7. 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25490

3 SA-1032-2024 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.

8. In the result, this Court is of considered opinion that trial court and first appellate Court on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record, recorded 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) V. JUDGE

NRJ