Mohar Singh vs Tarkhibai and Others

Alok Aradhe, J.—Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is by the plaintiff.

Facts leading to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that one Mayaram was the owner of the land admeasuring 5 acres. Respondent No. 14, namely, Ram Singh purchased the suit land vide registered sale-deed dated 17.6.1983 for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/- from Mayaram. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction.

The defendants filed the written statement, in which, the claims set up by the plaintiff were denied. It was further pointed out that the defendants are in possession of the land in question.

The trial Court decreed the suit. The decree passed by the trial Court was reversed by the Lower Appellate Court in appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that merely because the defendants were in possession of the suit land, the Lower Appellate Court grossly erred in reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court. It is also urged that the appeal filed by the defendants was decided by the Lower Appellate Court without condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The Lower Appellate Court has taken into account Ex. P/1 dated 5.5.1983 and on the basis of said document has held that Ram Singh was not the owner of the land in question as the sale-deed in his favour was executed subsequently i.e. on 17.6.1983. It was further held that neither any document of title has been filed by the plaintiff nor the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land, as the plaintiff has filed the suit for possession.

It is pertinent to mention here that at the time when the appeal was heard on merit, the plaintiff had not raised any objection before the Lower Appellate Court that the appeal is barred by limitation, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is deemed to be condoned by the Lower Appellate Court.

The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact is well defined by catena of decisions of Supreme Court. This Court in exercise of powers u/s 100 of the CPC can interfere with the finding of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. See. Narayanan Rajendran and Another Vs. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, Shri Hafazat Hussain Vs. Abdul Majeed and Others, , Union of India (UOI) Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, , D.R. Rathna Murthy Vs. Ramappa, and Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, . The findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court by no stretch of imagination can either be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.