Ganeshram vs Bhanwarlal

The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C., challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.9.2016 passed by Fifth

Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, District- Mandsaur in Regular Civil Appeal No.27-A/2017 whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal

and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2016 passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-1, Mandsaur, District-Mandsaur in Civil Suit No.69-

A/2013.

The appellant/plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit for declaration, permanent injunction in respect of the suit land bearing survey No.220 having area of

0.732 hectare and survey No.286 having area of 0.836 (total area of 1.568) situated at village-Isabkhedi, Tehsil and District- Mandsaur, against the

respondents before the First Civil Judge, Class-1, Mandsaur.

The averment of the plaint is that, the suit land was ownership of his father. It was averred that, the appellant is the recorded bhumiswami of the suit

land. It is also stated in the plaint that, the respondents/defendants No.1 to 6 were trying to forcibly dispossess the appellant from the suit land. The

suit was contested by the respondents- defendants Nos. 1 to 6 by filing written statement, wherein the plaint averments were denied by them.

On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court has framed issues in the matter and after recording the evidence and after appreciation of the evidence

as well as the material available on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove his case, therefore, dismissed the suit. Against the

said judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred the first appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court vide

judgment and decree dated 16.9.2017 has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved with the said judgment, the

appellant has filed the second appeal.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that, the findings recorded by the Courts below are illegal and perverse. He further

submits that the First Appellate Court ought to have been seen that the finding 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.

I have gone through the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below and have also perused the records.

The judgment passed by both the Courts below are well reasoned and are based on due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence

available on record. The findings recorded by the Courts below are the concurrent findings of facts. Learned counsel for the appellant 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.

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.

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