Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY ON THE 2nd OF JANUARY, 2024 SECOND APPEAL No. 534 of 2018 BETWEEN:- 1. SURESH KUMAR S/O SHRI BHAIYALAL LUHAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. ANAND KUMAR S/O BHAIYALAL LUHAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. MUKESH KUMAR S/O BHAIYALA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 4. ASHA W/O BHAIYALAL LUHAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ALL BY OCCUPATION LABOURER AND R/O WARD NO 16 PIPRAI POST PIPRAI DISTT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPELLANTS (BY SHRI N.K.GUPTA LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI YPS RATHORE - ADVOCATE ) AND 1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PARGANA MUNGAOLI, DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI RAMADHAR CHAUBEY - GOVT. ADVOCATE) This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed by plaintiffs/appellants against the concurring judgment and decree dated 15/1/2018 passed by First Additional District Judge, Mungawali, District Ashoknagar in Civil Appeal No.
37-A/2016 confirming the judgment and decree dated 31/8/2016 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Mungawali, District Ashoknagar in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2014. Plaintiffs' suit for declaration of right and permanent injunction was dismissed.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that appellants/plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendants seeking declaration of right and permanent injunction pleading that the house in dispute was constructed by Bhaiyalal, ancestor of plaintiffs and part of the land was purchased by registered sale deed dated 3/6/1982 and for remaining portion patta was granted by the State Government on 12/4/1988 and therefore, the order passed by Tehsildar under Section 248 of MPLRC is wrong and illegal.
3. Defendant filed written statement and denied all the plaint allegations.
4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon detailed examination of evidence on record, decreed the suit.
5. On appeal, the first appellate Court,while deciding the appeal framed a s many as 4 questions and answered each question exhaustively with due advertence to oral and documentary evidence on record. The first appellate court has found that no evidence has been produced by the plaintiffs which can prove that plaintiffs are owner of the disputed land; whereas, from the evidence produced on behalf of State,it is proved that plaintiffs are encroachers over the disputed land and therefore, the proceedings as initiated by the Tehsildar under Section 248 of MPLRC are in accordance with law.
6. After having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the view that the entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of facts which in the opinion of this Court do not warrant any interference under Section 100 of CPC. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Appeal is therefore, dismissed. ( (ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE JPS/-
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
