Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 7762
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, J
Hansraj Soni – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
Second Appeal No.1014 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Sanjay Kumar Patel
For the Respondents: Shri K.K. Agnihotri, Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari
The High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact in a second appeal unless a substantial question of law is presented.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeal - Scope of jurisdiction - For the High Court to interfere with findings of fact made by lower courts, a substantial question of law must arise; mere disagreements with conclusions are not sufficient. (Paras 11, 12, and 15)
(B) Tenancy - Encroachment - It was established that the appellant had encroached upon government land, affecting his tenancy rights; the courts below dismissed the appellant’s suit on this ground with concurrent findings based on evidence. (Paras 3, 4, and 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit against the respondents claiming tenancy over a property while being accused of illegal encroachment on government land. The suit was dismissed by both courts due to the established facts of encroachment.
Findings of Court:
The lower courts found that the appellant was an encroacher and lawfully dispossessed him from both the rented shop and the encroached land.
Issues: Main issues included the appellant’s claim of tenancy and the legality of eviction based on encroachment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal cannot reappraise findings of fact unless a substantial question of law is presented.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of appeal due to dissatisfaction with earlier judgments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of respondent claims regarding tenancy and encroachment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court's findings and their basis in evidence. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. discussion of second appeal principles and case law. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. conclusion and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on 21.10.2021]
1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2018 passed in Ist Civil Judge Class-II Betul which was affirmed vide judgment and decree dated 06.03.2021 by the Ist Additional District Judge Betul in regular Civil Appeal No.100/2018.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2- President, Shriram Mandir is the landlord of the property, the disputed shop which is situated at Plot No.87, Mouja Kothi Bazar, Nazul sheet No.7, tehsil and District Betul. The Shop was rented out to the appellant total area ad-mesuring 14x10 =140 Sq.ft.
3. The appellant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction againt the respondents before the trial Court on the grounds that he paid the rent regularly to the respondent No.2/Trust. He received a notice from Tahsildar Betul on 28.03.2017 for dispossesion over the land situated at Nazul Sheet No.7 plot No.42/1 area about 15x8=120 Sq. feet. It is alleged that the same was encroached by him hence, he filed a suit and prayed to declare the he is tenant over the disputed area 120 Sq. Feet of plot No.42/1 and also prayed to pass permanent injunction againt the State/respondent No.1 for not dispossess him forcibly from the suit land.
4. The respondent No.1, denied the allegations and stated that in fact the land bearing Khasara No.42/1 is the Government land. The shop which was rented out to the appellant is situated nearby plot No.42/1. The appelant encroached the suit land i.e. Khasara No.42/1. The State has impsoed penalty of Rs.3000/- against the appellant for illegal encroachment, which was deposited by him even then, he has not vacated the suit land. Therefore, the State proceeded against the appellant to dispossess him from the Government land. In order to prolong the proceedings, the appellant filed a suit which is liable to be dismissed.
5. The respondent No.2 also denied the pleadings of the appellant and contended that the appellant encroached more than the land which was rented out to him in the form of Shop which is shown in the suit map in "blue colour" as "ABCD" and the encroached land is shown in "Red colour". Therefore, the State/respondent No.1 lawfully dispossed the appellant. The respondent No.2 also terminated his tenancy through legal notice dated 17.05.2016 and now the appellant is in illegal possession of the Shop along with encroached land. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The respondent No.2 filed a counter-claim for getting vacant possession of the suit land from the appelalnt.
6. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence vide judgment dated 31.10.2018 dismissed the suit filed by the appellant holding that the appellant has encroached the suit land and, therefore, the respondents are legally entitled to get vacant possession of the rented shop and the Government land bearing Khasara No.42/1. Being agrieved by the above, the appelalnt has filed first appeal before the Ist Addl. District Judge, Betul as regular Civil Appeal No.100/2018. The appellate Court dismissed the suit as well as the counter-claim of the respondent No.2 for means profit. The appellate Court found that as per Spot inspection report Ex-D-19, this fact was established that the plot No.87 area 5281 Sq. feet situate at Nazul Sheet No.7 was recorded in the name of Trust/respondent No.2. The disputed shop which was taken by the appellant on rent was also situate there and the plot area 42/1 situated at Sheet No.7 is belongs to Public Works Department/State. It is important to mention there that there was a d
