IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)

ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2024 SECOND APPEAL No. 837 of 2017 BETWEEN:-

CHHATAR SINGH S/O KHEER SINGH PATEL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, VILLAGE MOHAD TAHSIL KARELI, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI G. S. BAGHEL – ADVOCATE )

AND

1. KHEER SINGH S/O KUNJILAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

2. GOPAL PRASAD S/O KHEER SINGH PATEL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHAD, TEHSIL KARELI DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR.

3. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS ( SHRI VIKAS JYOTISHI – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 )

( MS. SHAKTI TRIPATHI – PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

O R D E R

Heard on admission.

This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA by the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.21/2016 by First Additional District Judge, District Narsinghpur (M.P.), whereby learned First Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2015 passed by Third Civil Judge Class-II, District Narsinghpur in Civil Suit No.9-A/14, whereby the suit filed by appellant/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding suit property bearing Khasra No.54/1, 54/2, 173/1 total area 0.579 acre situated in Village Mohad Bandobast No.490, PH.No.21/50 Tehsil Kareli Distt. Narsighpur. Learned trial Court after framing of the issues and recording of evidence dismissed the civil suit as found not proved, against which appellant/plaintiff preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, present second appeal has been filed.

3. Appellant has 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 judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below are erroneous in law and on facts ?

2. Whether the learned courts below have rightly held that the disputed property is self acquired property of respondent No.1?

3. Whether the learned courts below contrary to the evidence of PW-1 Kheer Singh held that the appellant is not entitled for decree as prayed by him ?

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA

4. Learned counsel for the appellant 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.

5. I have heard the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record and the impugned judgment.

6. It reveals from the judgment of trial Court as well as First Appellate Court that both the Courts have considered the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and after marshaling the entire evidence, the issues involved in the case were properly decided by the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. There are concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show that those findings are either contrary to record or perverse. Learned counsel for the appellant is also not able to point out any substantial question of law which needs adjudication in this Second Appeal.

7. In the case of Kondiba