Krishna Bihari And Others vs Ramesh Prasad And Others

Heard.

This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 4.09.2019 passed by District Judge, Panna in Regular Civil Appeal No.06/2017 arising out of judgment and decree dated 22.12.2016 passed by Ist Civil Judge Class-II, Panna in Civil Suit No.19- A/2015 whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit.

The plaintiffs/appellants  filed  a Civil  Suit No.19-A/2015  for declaration, injunction and possession of agricultural land of different Khasras, situated at Village Pagra Tahsil Amanganj, which was dismissed with costs, thereafter they filed Regular Civil Appeal No.06/2017, which has also been dismissed. Hence, this second appeal has been filed.

It appears that both the parties belongs to one family and they are in possession of the land of different Khasra’s, according to their family settlement. The appellants by the aforesaid civil suit have raised objection mainly in respect of land bearing Khasra No.483/1 ad-measuring 0.69 hectors, which was transferred in the name of Manish Prasad on the basis of sale deed dated 24.1.2002 executed by Nanhi Bai, mother of appellants and respondent No.1, 3 and 4 in favour of respondent No.2 Manish Prasad, who is her grand son. The dispute raised by the appellants that Nanhi Bai who is illiterate aged about 85 years and by playing fraud the sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No.2 Manish Prasad, who is the son of respondent No.1 Ramesh Prasad.

On going through the said Sale deed dated 24.1.2002 (Ex. D. 1), which was executed before the Sub-Registrar by Nanhi Bai and two witnesses namely Mastram and Kaushalya Bai have identified the executor Nanhi Bai.  Mastram (respondent No.4) and Kaushilya Bai are the son and daughter of  Nanhi Bai.

Although Nanhi bai and Kaushaliya bai have been examined on behalf  of the appellants and they have stated that no such Sale deed was executed  but in their cross examination they have admitted that Nanhi Bai had gone to  some office & a deed was executed on which Nanhi Bai had affixed his  thumb impression and Kaushalya Bai had made her signature. Kaushalya Bai  appears to be quite literate on observing her signature, so her defence cannot  be relied that she signed that document without the knowledge that it's a sale  deed of a land which is going to be transferred in the name of Manish Prasad  S/o Ramesh Prasad, who is grand son of Nanhi Bai.

The said Sale deed executed on 24.1.2002 (Ex. D.1) appears to be  genuine on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The question of  execution of Sale deed is the pure question of facts and there are concurrent  findings of learned Courts below against the appellants with regard to  aforesaid sale deed.  As for as land of survey No.329/3 admeasuring 0.33  hector is concerned there is ample evidence on record that in family partition  this land has come in the share of Ramesh Prasad (Respondent No.1).

Therefore, it is held that learned First Appellate Court rightly held that the  findings of the learned trial Court are based on evidence available on record  and no perversity or illegality has been committed by the learned Courts  below.

In case of €œGuruvachan Kaur Vs. Salikram, (2010) 15 SCC  530, it was held that it is settled law that, in exercise of power under Section  100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the  findings of fact, recorded by the first appellate Court which is the final Court  of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse, which is discussed by  Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of €œDamodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi and others, (2016) 3 SCC 78, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that even if the finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a  question of law. The wrong finding should stem out of a complete misreading  of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. The  safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man's  interference on the facts.

In view of aforesaid discussion and principles laid down by the  Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not proper and legally justified to interfere with  the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by learned Trial Court and the First  Appellate Court on a pure question of fact. In Second Appeal, the re- appreciation of evidence and interference with the findings of fact is not  permissible. This Court can interfere with the concurrent findings only when a  Substantial Question of law arises. If the Courts below have neither ignored  any material fact, nor has considered any inadmissible evidence, then this  Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.

In view of the aforesaid, the concurrent findings of fact arrived at  by two Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. In these  circumstances, the appeal being devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed  at the stage of admission.