AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 31/10/2018 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Kukshi, Dist - Dhar in Civil Appeal No. 12/2017 whereby the Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 27/06/2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Kukshi in Civil Suit no. 24A/2014
2 Respondents / Plaintiffs filed civil suit against the appellant /defendant/s before the trial Court for permanent injunction.
3 According to the plaint averments, the plaintiffs/ respondents filed civil suit on 16/08/2014 for permanent injunction with respect to suit property bearing survey no. 5 Area 0.554 hectare, survey no. 7 area 0.304 hectare, survey no. 8 area 1.055 hectare, survey no. Area 0.771 hectare, survey no. 41, area 0.197 hectare and survey no. 42 area 0.712 hectare situated in Village - Mahankalapura , Tah- Kukshi, District - Dhar against the appellants before Civil Judge, Class-II, Kukshi.
4 Defendant/ appellant filed their written statements, but denied the plaint averments.
5 The trial Court after framing the issues, recording the evidence and after appreciation of the evidence as well as the material available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved their case, therefore, allowed the suit of the plaintiff.s Against the said judgment and decree, the appellant/defendant preferred civil appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, while affirming the findings given by the trial Court, has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
6 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings recorded by the Courts below is illegal and perverse. He further submits that the First Appellate Court ought to have been seen that the findings recorded by the trial Court is contrary to the evidence and the same is also erroneous as the trial Court has not relied upon the evidence as well as the documents of the appellant. It is also submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and the documents available on record, on which basis, it is clearly apparent that the suit has wrongly been decreed in favour of the plaintiff / respondent. In view of the aforesaid, he prays that after admitting the appeal, the same may be allowed.
7 I have gone through the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and have also perused the record.
8 The judgment passed by both the Courts below are well reasoned and are based on due appreciation of documentary evidence on record. The findings recorded by the Courts below are the concurrent findings of facts. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show that how the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
9 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 vs. Abdul Majeed & others, 2011 (7) SCC, 189, Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012 (8) SCC 148 and Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, 2012 (7) SCC, 288.
10 For the aforesaid reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
C c as per rules.