Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PREM NARAYAN SINGH
Omprakash – Appellant
Versus
Vishnuprasad S/o Siddhanath (Died) through LRs. Gangabai – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The appellants have preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2022, passed in Civil Regular Appeal No. 26/2017, passed by Second District Judge, Sarangpur, Distt Rajgarh whereby appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed by affirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned Civil Judge Class-l, Sarangpur, Distt.- Rajgarh in Civil Original Suit No. 19A/2014, dated 28.11.2016.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the respondents/defendant had filed suit for declaration of ownership, partition and permanent injunction on the basis of easement rights claiming 29 X 33 Sq. Ft. land in survey no.811, having 0.0009 Hectare, total land, situated in Tehsil Sarangpur, Distt- Rajgarh (Biora). In the plaint the respondent/plaintiff had stated that, they are representative of the Nath community and a 200 years old cemetery (graveyard) of their ancestors is situated in the Sarangpur and for their worship and function they have to use this path to reach at cemetery. But, the father of the defendants/appellants 1 & 2 has moved an application for NOC on the land for the construction in the year 2010 and o
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse; a substantial question of law must be established for a second appeal under CPC.
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited to substantial questions of law, and adverse possession must be proven with evidence to claim ownership of government land.
Possession and ownership are questions of fact, and decisions such as Panchayat resolutions do not confer ownership unless registered as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act.
The possession is a pure question of fact, and the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are based on no evidence or are perverse.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the evidence and the application of the legal principles, including the provisions of the Easement Act, 1882, to determine....
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed in a second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises, which was not applicable in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
