Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Gopal vs Suresh Kumar Soni on 18 March, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13477
1 SA-2691-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2691 of 2023
RAM GOPAL
Versus
SURESH KUMAR SONI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. P.L. Shrivastava - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rohan Harne - Advocate for the respondent no.1.
None for respondent no.2, inspite service of notice.
Shri Reji Mathai - Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.3.
JUDGMENT
The present Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code
has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2023 passed by
Fourth District Judge, Sagar in RCA No.53/2022, whereby learned Fourth
District Judge, Sagar has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment
of the trial court dated 25.01.2022 in C.S. No.12-A/2014.
2. On perusal of the record, it is seen that plaintiff - Suresh Kumar
Soni and two others filed a Civil Suit No. 12-A of 2014 against Smt. Suman
Shukla and two others. Learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated
25.01.2022 decreed for the suit property situated in Sagar District mentioned
in detail in Para-1 of the trial court.
3. On an appeal by the defendant no.2- Ram Gopal, learned First
Appellate Court in RCA No.53/2022, vide judgment and decree dated
01.03.2023 dismissed the appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13477
2 SA-2691-2023
4. The appeal has been filed on the ground that the suit has been
decreed on the basis of report which is not proper. The appellant was in
possession of the suit property for more than seventeen years and his house
has been constructed on the land.
5. Perused the record and considered the arguments.
6. It is seen that earlier between the same party regarding the same
litigation the judgment was passed on 7.2.2015 by the trial court but on an
appeal learned IIIrd District Judge, Sagar, vide judgment and decree dated
6.1.2021 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated
7.2.205 and remanded the case for determination as per law. Therefore, this
second judgment has been passed by the trial court dated 25.01.2022 in C.S.
No.12-A/2014.
7. On perusal of the Commissioner's report as also mentioned in Para-
13 to 17 of the trial court judgment, it is seen that Commissioner Report Ex.
P-17, dated 12.3.2014 highlights this fact that regarding Khasra No.215,
three Batank were created as 1, 2 and 3, but in the map of the suit land only
two khasras are mentioned, i.e. Khasra No.215/1, area 0.041 hectares and
Khasra No. 215/2, area 0.490 hectares and in the map there is no mention of
Khasra No. 215/3 and there is no area left which can be marked as Khasra
No. 215/3. It is also mentioned in the Commissioner's report that
defendant no. 1- Suman purchased the suit property from Komal Chand,
through power of attorney Abhay Singhai from Khasra No. 215/2, area 1425
sq. ft. but possession was given from Khasra No. 215/1. Therefore, trial
court on the basis of Commissioner's report held that defendant nos. 1 and 2
have constructed the house on the land owned by plaintiff.
8. It is seen that defendant nos. 1 to 3 remained exparte in the trial
court as mentioned in the judgment and decree dated 25.1.2022. Therefore,
it is seen that all facts and legal position have been considered by both the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13477
3 SA-2691-2023
Courts and when the defendant/appellant chose not to appear and contest
the case in the trial court, they are hardly in a position to pray for admission
of this appeal against the concurrent findings.
9 . 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.
10. For the reasons discussed above, this appeal has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
bks
