Kaushilya Bai vs Ramsharan

Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff vide judgment and

decree dated 23.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.14A/2011

affirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 31.07.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge ClassÂI, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur

(C.G.) in Civil Suit No.141A/2005, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

Mr. Verma,learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that both the Courts below have grossly erred in concurrently holding that the

suit land is the ancestral property of Mangal Prasad and only on that basis, it cannot be held that the appellant has no right and title over the suit

property by recording a finding perverse to the record. As such, the appeal be admitted for hearing by formulating substantial question of law.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submissions made hereinÂabove and also went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

The suit property was originally held by Mangal Prasad. He had three sons namely Gajadhar, Ramsharan and Laxman. The appellants are the legal

representatives (wife and children) of Gajadhar. The defendant No.1 is the brother of Gajadhar, whereas the defendant Nos.2 & 3 are the wife and

son, respectively, of Laxman. Mangal sold the suit property to defendant No.1 Ramsharan by way of sale deed dated 17.03.1971, in which Gajadhar

stood as attesting witness. The original plaintiff Gajadhar filed a suit for declaration of title on 12.05.2003 with respect to the suit land, in which it is the

stand of the defendant No.1 that his father Mangal has alienated the suit land and he has purchased the suit land from his father by way of registered

sale deed dated 17.03.1971, in which Gajadhar himself stood as attesting witness.

The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the suit

property is held by defendant No.1, who has purchased the same from his father Mangal by way of registered sale deed dated 17.03.1971, in which

the original plaintiff Gajadhar himself stood as the attesting witness and interest, if any, has already been surrendered by the plaintiff and there is no

right or title over the suit land and even the plaintiff did not seek cancellation of the sale deed dated 17.03.1971. The judgment and decree of the Trial

Court has also been affirmed by the First Appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff, against which this second appeal has been

preferred.

The finding recorded by the two Courts below that Mangal has already sold the suit property to defendant No.1 and Gajadhar himself stood as the

attesting witness is a finding of fact based on the material available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record.

I do not find any substantial question of law for determination in this second appeal so preferred by the appellant/plaintiff. It deserves to be and is

hereby dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No order as to cost (s).