Bhagwat Singh Tekam vs Smt. Shyamwati Bai

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard Shri Manoj Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.

This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.1.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge Dindori, in Civil Appeal No. 27-A/11 affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.3.2011 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Dindori, in Civil Suit No. 15-A/09 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent has been dismissed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was an oral partition between the appellant and the respondents, pursuant to which, the matter was taken up before the revenue authorities for mutation and by Ex. P/9 the name of the appellant alone was recorded as owner of the disputed land. It is submitted that inspite of aforesaid, when the respondents started disputing the title of the appellant, the appellant had to file a suit and the appeal which have been dismissed by the courts below.

It is submitted that there is a presumption in favour of the appellant in view of the provisions of Section 117 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and in such circumstances, the courts below have erred in dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the appellant. It is further submitted that the courts below have ignored the material evidence brought on record and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree be set aside.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, it is observed that the courts below have examined the oral and documentary evidence on record in detail and have recorded a finding to the effect that the appellant has failed to produce documentary evidence to establish the existence of the oral partition. From a perusal of the record it is clear that no statement of the respondents was recorded before the revenue authorities and the respondents were also not noticed at the time of changing the Namantran Panji by which the name of the appellant was recorded in the revenue records. It is further clear that the records of the revenue authorities which would establish that the respondents had been noticed and summoned in the proceedings were also not produced before the courts below. The evidence of the respondents also indicates that they have specifically and categorically denied the existence of the oral partition and have asserted that the property is joint property. In view of the oral and documentary evidence, the courts below have recorded a finding to the effect that there was no oral partition between the parties and the property remained joint property, and therefore, dismissed the suit and the appeal filed by the appellant.

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any perversity having been committed by the courts below giving rise to a substantial question of law. The aforesaid concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below is based on proper assimilation of oral and documentary evidence on record which does not warrant any interference by this Court as it does not suffer from any perversity.

In the circumstances, I do not find any substantial question of law arising for adjudication in the present appeal. The appeal being meritless is accordingly dismissed.