Madhya Pradesh High Court
Motiram vs Dazmal Dazla on 19 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27505
1 SA-2945-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 19th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2945 of 2019
MOTIRAM S/O NIMBA SHONEVANEY
AND ANOTHER
Versus
DAZMAL / DAZLA S/O PURANMAL AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Appellants - plaintiffs by Shri Girish Kumar Purwar - Advocate.
Respondent No.1 - defendant by Shri Anendra Singh Parihar -
Advocate.
Respondent No.2 - State of Madhya Pradesh by Shri Surendra Kumar
Gupta - Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Advocate General.
ORDER
Heard on admission.
This appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for
short CPC) has been preferred by the appellants - plaintiffs being aggrieved
by judgment and decree dated 27.08.2019 (Annexure A/1) passed in Regular
Civil Appeal No.09-A of 2019 (Motiram and another v. Dazmal and another)
by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Sendhwa District Barwani
(MP), whereby judgment and decree dated 22.11.2016 (Annexure A/2)
passed in Regular Civil Suit No.23-A of 2016 (Motiram and another v. Dazja
and another) by learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Khetiya, District Barwani
(MP) has been upheld by dismissing the appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27505
2 SA-2945-2019
2. Brief facts of the case are that before the trial Court, a suit was filed
by the plaintiffs (appellants) for injunction, declaration, possession and
mesne profit with regard to agriculture land bearing Old Patwari Halka No.6
(New Patwari Halka No.19), Survey No.94/08, area 0.097 hectare situated at
Village Pannali, Tehsil Pansemal, District Barwani (MP). After obtaining
Written Statement (WS) from the defendant (respondent) side, necessary
issues were framed to resolve the controversy; and after affording an
opportunity to lead evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court
dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs (appellants) have failed to
prove their case on preponderance of probabilities. When these findings
were challenged in Regular Civil First Appeal No.09-A of 2019, the same
was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2019 by affirming the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court. Thus, both the Courts have recorded the
concurrent findings.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no finding has been
recorded by the Court below with regard to the fact that the appellants are
'Agnate' of the original landowner under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Therefore, learned counsel submits that the substantial questions of law are
involved, hence prays for admitting the appeal on proposed substantial
questions of law.
4. Heard and considered the submissions raised at Bar.
5. From perusal of the judgment passed by the Courts below, it is
apparent that no objection was raised by either side with regard to the
aforesaid fact, which has been contended before this Court regarding the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27505
3 SA-2945-2019
appellants being 'Agnate' of the original landowner. When this objection was
neither raised nor proved, there was no occasion for the Courts below to
record finding.
6. From perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the Courts
below, it is found that the evidence led before the trial Court has been
properly appreciated and the findings arrived at by the trial Court were
confirmed in the first appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any
perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. There is no
justification in disturbing the aforesaid findings. In considered view of this
Court, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal.
Therefore, this second appeal being devoid of substance fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rcp
