IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH th ON THE 18 OF JULY, 2024 SECOND APPEAL No. 2863 of 2018 KASHI PRASAD AND OTHERS Versus MUNI PRASAD AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vivek Agrawal - Advocate for the appellants.

ShriSurendra Mishra - Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 13.

Shri S.S.Sengar - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

JUDGMENT Arguments on admission were heard on 08.4.2024.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has submitted that appellants have lost in both the courts. It is also submitted by him that Will in favour of appellants/defendants was proved but both the Courts wrongly held that Will is not proved. It is further contended that Will was known to the respondents/plaintiffs for more than 03 years, therefore, suit ought to have been dismissed as time barred. 3. On perusal of record of Civil Suit No.12-A/2010 [Muni Prasad and others Vs. Kashi Prasad and others] which has been decided by learned trial Court (Civil Judge Class-I, Vijayraghawagarh, District Katni) vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2013, it is seen that Muni Prasad and Kashi Prasad are real brothers and both are sons of Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH Jageshwar Prasad. The only point of dispute is that partition of property took place in the family and one portion was marked for mother of the Muni Prasad and Kashi Prasad. After her death it was claimed by the defendants that Muni Prasad s/o Jageshwar Prasad had willed the property to son of Kashi Prasad, namely, Kuber Datt. The unregistered Will has been exhibited as Exhibit-D/1. On perusal of pleadings, evidence and judgment it is seen that unregistered Will is not proved. On the contrary, it is proved by evidence of DW.3-Koduram that at the time of so called Will, Jageshwar Prasad who is said to have willed the property was old, illiterate, very ill and was unable to speak and he was under persuasion from the defendants regarding Will and was made to affix his thumb impression, therefore, this unregistered Will is not proved to be with free consent, in healthy mind and body and hence, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. The appellate Court in Appeal No.35A/2013 [Kashi Prasad and another Vs. Muni Prasad and others] dismissed the appeal. Hence, both the courts have meticulously appreciated material available on record. Therefore, no substantial question of law arise in this appeal on which it can be admitted. All the points have been properly considered by both the courts in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well defined by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact until or unless the same is Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH perverse or contrary to material on record. [See: Narayan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Antoher, (2012) 8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011) 1 SCC 158 Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare, (2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264] The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based on no evidence.

5. In the result, in the second appeal no substantial question of law arise. It is sans merit and hence, dismissed at admission stage itself.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)

JUDGE RM Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH