SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 16431

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI), J
Vishnu – Appellant
Versus
Kagdu Singh – Respondent
SA 65/2023



Advocates:
Suyash Tripathi,

Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless proven erroneous or perverse.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeal against concurrent findings of fact - Appellants sought declaration of title and permanent injunction over suit property, claiming ownership through ancestor - Courts below dismissed suit and appeal, affirming findings based on evidence and revenue records - No substantial question of law found to entertain appeal. (Paras 1, 4, 8, 11)

(B) Concurrent findings of fact - High Court in second appeal does not interfere with concurrent findings unless they are perverse or contrary to evidence. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
Appellants filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over suit properties, claiming ownership through ancestor. Defendants denied claims, asserting their own rights and possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appeal was also dismissed.

Findings of Court:
The courts below properly considered pleadings and evidence, leading to concurrent findings of fact that were not shown to be perverse.

Issues: The main issues were whether the courts erred in not considering the defendants' admission regarding partition and whether the rejection of applications under CPC was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed under Section 100 of the CPC unless shown to be erroneous or perverse.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 02/12/2022 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.2/2018 by Court of District Judge, Rajendragram, District Anuppur (M.P.), whereby learned District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgement and decree dated 20/12/2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge Class-I, Rajendragram, District Anuppur (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.83-A/2016, whereby the suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs for declaration of title, ownership and for permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration of title, ownership and for permanent injunction for the suit properties bearing Khasra Nos. 4,5, 7, 9, 12, 42, 43, 90, 102, 103, 394, 407, 411, 420, 422, 455, 443, 545, 563, 430/586, 39/627, 40/628, 43/631, 44/632, 45/633, 46/634, 48/636, 51/639, 54/142, 59/647, 60/648 and 73/661 total 39.69 acres (herein after called the suit property) situated at Village Salharo, Tehsil Pushprajgarh, District Anuppur (M.P.) on the ground that the suit property belonged to ancestor of the plaintiffs ‘Dharamdasiya Gond’, which is self acquired property and defendants are neither the heirs or related to ‘Dharamdasiya Gond’, therefore, they do not have any title over the suit property, however, in collusion with the revenue authorities, they have got their names entered in the revenue records.

It is also alleged that the defendants claim their false possession over the suit property and moved an application under Sections 145, 149 of the Criminal Procedure Code and are trying to dispossess and disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and to get the suit property auctioned. Defendants have filed the written statement and denied all the claims and averments mentioned in the plaint and contended that the Sajra Khandan (Family Tree) produced by the plaintiffs is incorrect and incomplete and the plaintiffs deliberately not mentioned the name of brother and father of ‘Dharamdasiya Gond’. They further pleaded that they are the relatives of the appellants/plaintiffs and their family members having same descendants and therefore, they are entitled for the share in the suit property. They have also pleaded that partition in the family has already been done and on that basis they are in possession of the suit property and their names have already been entered in the revenue records and they prayed for dismissal of suit.

3. Learned trial Court after framing of the issues and recording of evidence dismissed the civil suit as found not proved, against which appellants/plaintiffs preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the impugned judgement. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgement, present second appeal has been filed.

4. Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the first appellant Court on the following substantial question of law :

    “1.
    Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below were justified in not considering the admission of defendants that the partition has not been proved ?

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the First Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the applications filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10 and under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code?”

5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that learned courts below have wrongly dismissed the suit as well as appeal and findings recorded by the courts below are perverse and against the evidence on record. On the strength of above, it is submitted that substantial questions of law, as mentioned in the appeal memo, arise for determination of this Court and appeal be admitted for final hearing.

6. I have heard the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top