1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Mandla in Regular Civil Appeal No. 17-A/08, whereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1998 passed in Civil Suit No. 111-A/1996 by the trial Court.
3. The appellant/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
4. According to plaint averments, the deceased Parasram was the main holder of the suit property who had two sons and one daughter namely Ramkaran, Revaram and Phuljarbai. The suit property became joint property of deceased, Ramkaran, Revaram and Phuljarbai died issueless. Mangobai was daughter of Ramkaran who was survived by her daughter appellant Ushabai. Thus, the appellant has become sole successor of the suit property.
5. Defendant no. 1 Kalibai had mutated the suit land in her favour on 6.4.1996 by misrepresenting her as widow of revaram. Kalibai has also taken possession of ½ portion of the suit land with the help of defendant no. 3 Parsadi. Defendant no. 2 Savitribai has illegally taken possession of the suit house in absence of the appellant. Thus, the appellant has instituted the present suit.
6. Defendants were ex-parte before the Courts below.
7. The trial Court after framing the issues and recording the documentary as well as oral evidence, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff has filed first appeal before the first Appellate Court.
8. The first Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 22.12.2009 while affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal on the ground that the findings arrived at by both the Courts below are illegal and erroneous.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. He further argues that both the Courts below have erred in not properly appreciating the evidence on record. He further argues that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and without appreciation of evidence on record.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as perused the record and judgment passed by both the Courts below and I found that the judgment passed by both the Courts below are well reasoned and are based on due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Findings recorded by the Courts below are concurrent finding of the facts, which do not require any interference by exercising the powers under Section 100 of the C.P.C Thus, there is no illegality or perversity in the judgments passed by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that any substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal and the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below are illegal, perverse or based on no evidence.
11. The Supreme Court in number of cases has held that in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the findings of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse and based on no evidence. Some of these judgments are Hajazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed, (2011) 7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 and Vishwanath Agrawal, S/O Sitaram Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal., (2012) 7 SCC 288.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
13. Certified copy as per rules.
Comments