Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh vs Dr. Manoj on 7 May, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24113
1 SA-2792-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2792 of 2024
RAMESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DR. MANOJ AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Suryansh Shukla - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Amit Pandey - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Record is received. Heard on admission.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that
appellants have lost from both the courts. It is also submitted that on
05.5.2018 before the learned trial Court PW.1-Suryakand Trivedi, Sub-
Registrar appeared alongwith the record in respect of sale deed dated
29.9.2012 wherein power of attorney holder was Dr.Manoj and such
document is Exhibit-P/1. It is stated by him that certified copy of same has
been given but copy of power of attorney is exhibited. It is further submitted
that power of attorney holder sold the suit property to his wife, therefore,
matter is suspicious. It is also contended that both the courts have not
considered this point. It is also submitted that in paragraph 14 of the trial
Court it is mentioned that plaintiff stated that he had received copy of
'Mukhtyarnama' dated 04.9.2012. It is also submitted that he has photocopy
of power of attorney, which is a registered one, but record of same was never
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:24113
2 SA-2792-2024
summoned by the plaintiff. He very fairly submitted that he never tried to
call for the record of power of attorney dated 04.9.2012 from the office of
Sub-Registrar and this fact has been dealt with by the trial Court in
paragraphs 14 to 25 of its judgment. On appreciation of evidence the trial
Court has held that power of attorney dated 04.9.2012 is proved. It is also
submitted that since there is positive finding in respect thereof by the trial
Court in its judgment dated 25.7.2022, therefore, finding on sale deed dated
27.9.2012 is also in their favour, however, learned trial Court wrongly
dismissed the suit. On an appeal by the plaintiffs the learned first appellate
Court dismissed the same.
3. Considered the arguments at length and perused the record. It
seems that both courts have rightly arrived at a finding on meticulous
appreciation of facts and evidence available on record. There is no
substantial question of law on which this second appeal can be admitted.
4. 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:24113
3 SA-2792-2024
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.
5. In the result, this second appeal beings sans substantial question of
law is dismissed at admission stage itself.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
