Munnalal vs Shamshuddin Khan

Alok Aradhe, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal is by the plaintiffs who have lost in both the courts below.

The facts, giving rise to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs filed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs along with their father had purchased the plot in question and a suit house on 17.12.1962. It was further pleaded that after obtaining permission from the Municipal Council on 25.2.1963, the plaintiffs constructed the house on the aforesaid plot. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs'' father on 19.7.1971 had sold a part of plot and house to Mohd. Ahmed who in turn had sold the land purchased by him admeasuring 910 square feet to the defendant. The defendant encroached a part of the plot which belongs to the plaintiffs and started construction over the same. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of possession and permanent injunction.

The defendant filed the written statement in which it was inter alia pleaded that the defendant raised the construction on the plot which belong to him and the same was purchased by him vide registered sale deed dated 17.12.1962.

The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2005 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The aforesaid decree has been affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. It is further submitted that the objection preferred by the plaintiffs to the report submitted by the commissioner has been illegally rejected.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. The trial Court vide an order dated 30.6.2005 has held that at the time of demarcation, the plaintiff''s son namely, Krishn Kumar and plaintiff''s counsel were present who did not raise any objection when the demarcation was carried out. The courts below by placing reliance on the demarcation report have held that the defendant has not encroached any portion of the land which belongs to the plaintiffs. The aforesaid finding of fact which is concurrent in nature is based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to dislodge the concurrent finding of fact which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record.

Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact u/s 100 of the CPC is well defined by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material on record. [See: Narayanan Rajendran and Another Vs. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, , Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 189, Union of India (UOI) Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, , D.R. Rathna Murthy Vs. Ramappa, Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, and Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare, (2013) 7 SCC 173]

The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based on no evidence.

For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.