Rajasthan High Court
Rajendra Singh vs Ibrahim on 3 November, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.199/2016
Rajendra Singh S/o Ram Singh, R/o Gokliya Pada, Mandrayal
District Karauli Rajasthan.
----Plaintiff-Appellant
Versus
Ibrahim S/o Ismile, R/o Gokliya Pada, Mandrayal Tehsil
Mandrayal, District Karauli.
----Defendant-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
03/11/2022
1. The instant second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been
filed by appellant-plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated
29.01.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No.46/2015 by the Court of
Additional District Judge, Karauli affirming the judgment and
decree dated 29.09.2008 passed in Civil Suit No.96/2005 by the
Court of Civil Judge (JD) Karauli whereby and whereunder the civil
suit for declaration and possession filed by appellant-plaintiff has
been dismissed on merits.
2. Heard counsel for appellant.
3. This is a case where the appellant-plaintiff claimed his
ownership over the suit property on the basis of a registered sale
deed dated 19.08.2003 executed by Ghanshyam Lal and
Purushottam Lal, who purchase the suit land through registered
sale deed dated 06.07.1973 from Rahmat Khan, Samsher Khan
etc. It has come on record in the evidence that plaintiff's father
Ram Singh (PW-2) and two other witnesses of plaintiff namely
(2 of 3) [CSA-199/2016]
Jagannath (PW-3) and Laxminarain (PW-4) admitted in their
evidence that the suit property was belonging two persons Suka
and Asnath Khan who happens to be the brother in law of Rahmat
Khan. Plaintiff could not adduce any evidence to show that the
Rahmat Khan and Samsher Khan was the real owner of the suit
plot and were authorized to execute the sale deed dated
06.07.1973 to Ghanshyam Lal and Purushottam Lal, who in turn
executed sale deed dated 19.08.2003 in favour of plaintiff.
4. In such factual matrix, the trial court as well as the first
appellate court declined to accept the title of the plaintiff over the
suit property. It has also come on record that the suit property
has remained in possession of the defendant since 1992. On the
basis of such evidence, both courts recorded fact findings that
plaintiff measurably failed to prove his ownership over the suit
property and as such his suit for possession has been dismissed.
5. It is trite law that one cannot transfer a better title than he
has. In the instant case, appellant-plaintiff derives title over the
suit property from Rahmat Khan and Samsher Khan. It has been
examined on merits that Rahmat Khan and Samsher Khan
themselves were real owner of the suit property, therefore, both
courts below have not committed illegality or jurisdictional error in
dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession in absence of his
ownership. The findings of both the courts below are based on due
appreciation of evidence on record and it cannot be said that
findings are either perverse or suffer from misreading/non-reading
of evidence or based on no evidence or otherwise have been
based on surmises and conjectures.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan
v. Shiv Dayal [(2019) 8 SCC 637], has held that a concurrent
(3 of 3) [CSA-199/2016]
finding of the fact is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was
recorded dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or
based on misreading of the material on records and documents.
The Court held as under:
"When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second
appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in
law because it was recorded dehors the pleadings or it was
based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of
material documentary evidence or it was recorded against
any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no
Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. (see
observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose,J. as his
Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in
Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. vs. Dashrath
Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors.,[AIR 1943 Nag 117 para 43]"
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case C. Doddanarayan
Reddy vs. C. Jayarama Reddy [(2020) 4 SCC 659], has
observed that where two courts have reached a finding which is
not based upon any misreading of material documents, nor is
recorded against provisions of law and neither can it be said that
any Judge acting judiciously and reasonably could not have
reached such a finding, then High Court is not required to interfere
with such fact findings while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 100 CPC.
8. As a result, the second appeal is bereft of merits being no
involvement of any substantial question of law and accordingly,
the same is hereby dismissed.
9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SAURABH/85
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
