Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rafique Ahmed vs Abdul Hafeez Ansari on 6 May, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21238
1 SA-2341-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2341 of 2024
RAFIQUE AHMED
Versus
ABDUL HAFEEZ ANSARI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anand Singh Thakur - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Umesh Kumar Neekhar - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff who has lost in
both the Courts. This appeal has been filed against judgment and decree
dated 27.8.2024 passed by 9th District Judge, Rewa in Civil Appeal
No.20/2024 dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff and affirming the judgment
and decree of the trial Court (6th Civil Judge Junior Division, Rewa) dated
20.7.2023 passed in RCSA No.76/2016 whereby suit of the plaintiff has been
dismissed and counter claim of defendant No.1 has been partly allowed.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that
appellant is tenant of respondent No.2. The suit house was let out by Late
Abdul Farooq Ansari. After his death the appellant became the tenant of his
wife (Nafeesa Khatoon). It is submitted that Nafeesa Khatoon sold the suit
property to Abdul Hafeez Ansari (respondent No.1) by resgistered sale deed
dated 21.5.2015 (Exhbit-D/2). The defendant No.1 did not file any counter
claim regarding eviction on the ground denial of title. The suit was filed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21238
2 SA-2341-2024
Rafique Ahmed for eviction. The appellant/tenant had entered into an oral
agreement with respondent No.2 for purchase of suit property. It is also
submitted that both the courts dismissed counter claim for arrears of rent.
3. Perused the record and considered the submissions. The
appellant/plaintiff filed civil suit in respect of suit house No.91/34 for
cancellation of the sale deed and for declaring mutation as null and void as
also for granting possession to the plaintiff, declaration of title of plaintiff
and permanent injunction on the basis of oral agreement between the
plaintiff and defendant No.2 (Nafeesa Khatoon). While the defendant No.1
filed counter claim for grant of vacant possession of the suit house to him
after evicting the plaintiff and for arrears of rent. The learned trial Court
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and partly allowed the counter claim of the
defendant granting eviction and arrears of rent. On an appeal by the plaintiff
before the first appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.20/2024 vide
impugned judgment and decree the same too stood dismissed.
4. On perusal of the record it is seen that plaintiff had filed a suit
only on the basis of oral agreement between him and defendant No.2. The
plaintiff could not prove his case before the trial Court. He also could not
prove how the findings of the first appellate Court affirming the finding of
the trial Court are wrong. The Issue No.6 in the trial Court is regarding relief
of counter claim the learned trial Court has discussed the pleadings and
evidence from paragraphs 18 to 25 of the judgment and it has correctly
recorded and arrive at conclusion that plaintiff-Rafique in paragraph 19 of
his cross-examination has stated that he altered the suit shop by making a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21238
3 SA-2341-2024
new room. In paragraph 23 of the judgment of trial Court it is mentioned that
plaintiff stated that defendant No.2 after obtaining Rs.1.50 lacs agreed to sale
the suit house but neither registry was executed not amount was returned.
Therefore, the defendants No.1 & 2 can not evict him. The plaintiff stated
himself to be owner of the suit house. Therefore, there is denial of title by
denying title of defendant No.1 and trying to establish his own title.
Therefore, finding of the trial Court on Issue No.6 is well justified. On
perusal of paragraphs 24 & 25 it is seen that initially tenant has tried to prove
himself as owner of the suit property but could not prove his ownership over
the suit premises.
5. Thus, it is seen that both the courts have properly considered the
pleadings and correctly appreciated the evidence on the issues framed . There
is no substantial question of law on which this appeal can be admitted. Both
the courts have meticulously appreciated the material available on record.
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21238
4 SA-2341-2024
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, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at admission
itself.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
