Allahrakhi Bai vs Paraschand

Present second appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 16.05.2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Khilchipur, Distt.-Rajgarh in Civil Suit

No.14A/2011 by which the suit has been decreed. An appeal was preferred by the defendants i.e. Civil Regular Appeal No.01A/2013 decided on

19.08.2015 and the appeal of the defendant has been dismissed, meaning thereby, concurrent findings of facts have been arrived at by both the courts

below.

The facts of the case reveal that the respondents before this Court (Respondents Nos.1 to 9) are the plaintiffs in civil suit No.14A/2011 filed on

18.10.2010 for declaration, possession and mesne profit against the present appellant and respondent Nos.10 and 11. It was contended by the plaintiffs

that the plaintiffs' predecessor â€"Harakchandra was Bhumiswami of the disputed agricultural land situated in village-Chhapiheda, Tehsil-Khilchipur,

Distt.-Rajgarh and the defendants' predecessor- Umraokhan S/o Wazir Khan has filed a suit for declaration claiming Bhumiswami Rights.

The claim of Umraokhan claiming title was negativated on 23.11.2009, meaning thereby, claim of the father of the present appellant was not accepted

by the appellate court and thereafter, the plaintiffs, who are defendant Nos.1 to 9 have filed a suit claiming title over the suit property. The trial court

passed a judgment and decree declaring plaintiffs to be title holders of the property and the appellate court confirmed the findings.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before this Court that the plaintiffs were not able to prove their title by filing any document and

therefore, in light of the judgment delivered in the case of Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and others Vs. Bachhraj Factories Ltd., reported in 2018(2)

M.P.L.J., 539, the judgment and decree deserves to be set aside.

A reliance has also been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of H. Lakshmaiash Reddy Vs. L. Venkatesh Reddy, reported in AIR 2015

SC, 2499 and the contention of the learned senior counsel is that mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant

only for purpose of collection of land revenue and, therefore, title suit could not have been decreed on the basis of mutation.

Learned senior counsel has further placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Chief Executive Officer Vs. Surendra Kumar Vakil,

reported in 1999 (1) JLJ, 373 and his contention is that once plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title, all documents of title should be produced by

him. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Sebastiao Luis Fernandes Vs. K.V.P. Shastri, reported in 2013 (15)

SCC, 161 and his contention is that the initial burden of proof to establish ownership is upon the plaintiff and it cannot be placed upon the defendants.

Another reliance has also been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Maharani Ushadevi, reported in AIR

2015 SC, 2699 and contention of the learned senior counsel is that in light of the aforesaid judgment, the burden lies upon the person, who claims title

to prove it and the plaintiff has to succeed basing on the strength of his case and cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendant's case.

The contention of the learned counsel is that merely because in the earlier round of litigation, the present appellants have lost their claim in respect of

title. It cannot be held that the respondents in the present appeal/plaintiffs are title holders of the property.

This Court has carefully gone through the judgment delivered by the trial court. Undisputedly, a civil suit was preferred in the matter by Umrao

Khan, father of the present appellants/defendants and finally, by judgment and decree dated 22.08.1995 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.10/92A,

the claim of Umrao Khan in respect of land in question was dismissed.

Second appeal was also preferred by Umrao Khan and the second appeal was also dismissed i.e. S.A. No.259/95-A vide judgment and decree dated

23.11.2009. While the second appeal was pending, Umrao Khan expired and his children, who are the present appellants were brought on record. The

claim of title by Umrao Khan and his children was turned down even by this Court and in those circumstances, civil suit was preferred by the plaintiffs

claiming title, possession and mesne profit.

The trial court based upon the evidence adduced by the parties has arrived at a conclusion to decree the suit. The trial court has taken into account the

revenue record wherein name of Harakchand-father of the plaintiffs finds place. The trial court based upon the revenue entries and also keeping in

view the earlier round of litigation has decreed the suit. The findings of fact arrived at by the trial court have been affirmed by the first appellate court.

The findings of facts arrived at by the trial Court have been affirmed by the First Appellate Court, meaning thereby, there are concurrent findings of

fact arrived at by the Courts below.

This Court after careful consideration of the judgments delivered by both the Courts below and also the evidence on record, is of the considered

opinion that as no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal, the question of interference by this Court does not arise.

It is evident that plaintiff was able to prove his title and his possession. The findings of fact arrived at by the trial court have been affirmed by the first

appellate authority, meaning thereby, there are concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below. This court cannot interfere with the concurrent

findings of fact until or unless the same are perverse or contrary to material on record. See: Narayan Rajendran and another Vs. Lekshmy Sarojini

and others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussian Vs. Abdul Majeed and others, (2011) 7 SCC 189 and D.R. Rathna Murthy Vs. Ramappa, (2011) 1

SCC 158Â and Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Saria Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another, (2012) 8

SCC 148, Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape (dead) by LR Vs. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare (dead) by Lrs. and others, (2013) 7 SCC 173.

For the aforementioned reasons, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.