Nirbhaysingh S/O. Salagram And Ors vs Salagram And Others.

The appellant/plaintiff has filed the present second appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 30.7.2009 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class-I, Shajapur and judgment and decree dated 26.9.2012 passed by 1st Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Shajapur whereby the civil suit as well as first appeal both have been dismissed respectively .

Facts of the case, in brief, are as under :

(i) The appellant/plaintiff filed the civil suit for declaration, possession and mesne profit. The plaintiff is one of the son of respondent/defendant No.1 from his first wife. Respondents/defendants No.9 and 10 are sons of defendant No.1 from his second wife viz. Bhagwatibai. Respondents/defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 are real brothers of defendant No.1. Respondent/defendant No.6 is wife of Lalsingh and respondent/defendant No.5 is son of defendant No.6. Respondents/defendants No. 7 and 8 are grandsons of defendant No.4. That Siddhanath Singh was head of the family who had three sons viz. Gopalsingh, Munnalal and Lalsingh. Gopalsingh died issue-less. Defendants No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are sons of Munnalal.

(ii) According to the plaintiff, defendants No.1 to 8, after Siddhanath Singh became joint owner of the various agricultural land situated in Villages Lasudia Jagmal, Dupada, Dhobi Pachore, Tol Khedi and Mo. Badodia, Tehsil Agar. Plaintiff was co-parcener of joint Hindu family. The partition between defendants No.1 to 8 took place on 9.7.1999. In the said partition apart from other land, defendant No.1 got the land bearing Survey No. 2 area 2.15 Hect. situated at Village Dhobi Pachore and defendant No.2 and others got their properties situated in various other villages. According to the plaintiff, land bearing Survey No.2 area 2.15 Hect. came into the share of defendant No.1, but the Patwari did not record the partition, therefore, the land continued to be recorded in the name of defendants No.2 to 8 as Bhoomi Swami. After the settlement, the area of land bearing Survey No.2 remained 2.11 Hect. The plaintiff is in possession of the said land and he has dug the Well in the year 1983 in Rs.7,500/- and planted 900 plants of 'Mousambi'. He also got the electricity connection and installed 5 HP motor. Plaintiff further pleaded that defendant No.1 got married with Ramkunwar Bai who gave birth to the plaintiff. After death of Ramkunwar bai , defendant No.1 got married with Bhagwatibai who gave birth to Chhaganlal and Ashok Kumar. The plaintiff also alleged that defendant No.1 with the help of other defendants has sold the land admeasuring 5 Bigha 9 Biswa to defendants No. 9 and 10 vide registered sale-deed dated 8.12.2000 in order to take away his right and interest of plaintiff in the said land, hence the said deed is void and defendants No. 9 and 10 have no right, title and interest in the said land.

The plaintiff further pleaded that land bearing Survey No.52 area 2.24 Hect. and land bearing Survey No.47 area 0.002 Hect. were in the name of Sunder Bai which were purchased by defendant No.1 from the income of joint family property, hence he is also having half share in these lands. Said lands were purchased in Rs.6,000/- and half of the amount was paid by the plaintiff from the money came by sale of land bearing Survey No.965/3 area 0.34 Hect. vide registered sale-deed dated 1.6.1989.

(iii) Defendants No.1, 9 and 10 filed the joint written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is stated that the suit land bearing Survey No.2 area 2.15 Hect. was in the name of defendants No.2 to 8, which came into their share by way of the partition in the family. That vide registered sale-deed dated 13.9.2002 the plaintiff himself has sold 0.87 Hect. area of the land of Survey No.2 area 2.15 Hect to his sons - Rajesh and Gulshan without their knowledge and for which he filed the civil suit seeking cancellation of the said sale-deed. Defendant No.1 has admitted that the sale-deed executed in favour of defendants No. 9 and 10 was executed with his consent. He further pleaded that he is having three daughters viz. Lalta bai, Sushila bai and Rekha bai who are necessary parties. He has denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. He further submitted that the land bearing Survey No.52 area 2..24 Hect. and Survey No.47 area 0.02 Hect. was purchased by him from his income and not from the income of joint family property.

(iv) Defendants No.2, 3, 5 and 7 also filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint.

(v) On the basis of pleadings in the plaint and written statements, learned trial Court framed as many as 10 issues for adjudication. Two issues were framed in respect of valuation and jurisdiction of the trial Court and vide order dated 16.3.2007, they have been decided in favour of the plaintiff. After appreciating the evidence, learned trial Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the land bearing Survey Nos. 2 area 2.15 Hect.; Survey No. 47 area 0.002 Hect.; and Survey No.52 area 2.24 Hect. were not joint Hindu family property. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that defendant No.1 got the suit land by way of partition; hence he is not entitled for declaration of title and possession. Learned trial Court also held that the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2009, learned trial Court dismissed the suit.

(vi) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred first appeal and that too has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.9.2012 passed by 1st Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Shajapur.

(v) That being aggrieved by above two judgment & decree the plaintiff has now preferred this second appeal before this Court of various facts and grounds and has formulated following substantial questions of law for admission :

"1. क्‍या योग्य मूल अधिनस्थ न्यायालय के द्वारा अन्य प्रश्नों पर निश्चय नहीं करते हुए केवल वाद इस आधार पर निरस्त करने में कि Hindu Succession Act. 1956 में पैतृक सम्पत्ति में पुत्र को अधिकार प्राप्त नहीं है? व अपील न्यायालय द्वारा पैतृक सम्पत्ति में पुत्र को अधिकार मान लेने पर शेष प्रश्नों का निराकरण करने के लिये प्रथम अपील न्यायालय को उक्त प्रकरण मूल अधिनस्थ न्यायालय को रिमाण्ड करना चाहिये था।

क्‍या योग्य प्रथम अपील न्यायालय ने अपने निर्णय के चरण क्रमांक 26 में गुलशन व राजेश के संबंध में संपादित विक्रय पत्र, जिसके की संबंध में प्रतिवादीगण / रिस्पाडेंट का अपने वादोत्तर में अभिवचन नहीं है और इस संबंध में कोई वाद विषय नहीं है, उसके बावजूद इस प्रश्न पर विचार करने में गलती की है ?

क्‍या गुलशन व राजेश के संबंध में संपादित बिक्री पत्र के संबंध में सालगराम जी ने दीवानी वाद प्रस्तुत किया था जो मूल वाद प्रकरण क्र. 91-ए ,// 2008 न्यायालय व्यवहार न्यायाधीश वर्ग-1 शाजापुर के न्यायालय के द्वितीय अतिरिक्‍त व्यवहार न्यायाधीश वर्ग-1 शाजापुर के न्यायालय में सालगराम विरूद्ध राजेश के न्यायालय से उक्त वाद दिनांक 20.12.2008 को निरस्त हो जाने के बाद व इस संबंध में सालगराम जी की प्रथम अपील न्यायालय द्वितीय अतिरिक्‍त जिला न्यायाधीश शाजापुर के न्यायालय की प्रकरण क्रं. 9-ए / 2009 सालगराम विरूद्ध राजेश के निर्णय 02.09.2011 के बाद इस प्रश्न को रिस्पाडेंट दा : लेने का अधिकार था ?

क्‍या बिक्री पत्र के के संबंध में वाद में योग्य प्रथम अपील न्यायालय ने पक्षकारन के स्वत्व व हिस्से के संबंध में विचार करने में गलती की है?

क्‍या योग्य प्रथम अपील न्यायालय ने अपील में प्रस्तुत आवेदन पत्र अंतर्गत आदेश 1 नियम 10 सी.पी.सी. व 6 नियम 17 सी.पी.सी. को निरस्त करने में गलती की है?"

Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that both the courts below have erred in law as well as on facts while dismissing the suit. Both the courts below have not decided other issues only on the ground that under Hindu Succession Act, son is not having any right in the ancestral property during the life time of his father. The civil suit filed by defendant No.1 i.e. Civil Suit No.91-A/2008 and first appeal No.9-A/2009 both have been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2008 and 2.9.2011 respectively, against which, Second Appeal has been filed by defendant No.1 before this Court which has been admitted for final hearing. Later on , said appeal has been dismissed in default and application for restoration has not been filed so far. Defendant No.1 had already challenged the sale-deed executed in favour of Gulshan and Rajesh and the suit and appeal both have been dismissed, therefore, he has no right to challenge the said sale-deed in the present suit.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submitted that respondent No.1 filed the S.A. No.561/2011 against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, but after admission of the appeal, same has been dismissed in default and till today, the application for restoration has not been filed. He further submitted that the plaintiff has no right in the ancestral property during life time of his father i.e. respondent No.1. The apex Court in the case of The apex Court in the case of Uttam V/s. Saubhag Singh : AIR 2016 SC 1169 has held that as per Section 6 and 8 of Hindu Succession Act,1956 the plaintiff is not having any right and title in the ancestral property during life time of father, hence both the Courts below have not erred in dismissing the sit. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding and the same are not liable to interfered with by this Court u/s. 100 of the C.P.C.

I have heard Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiffs and Shri Nitin Phadke, learned counsel appearing for respondents/defendants at length and perused the record of Courts below.

The plaintiff came with the plea that the partition in the family took place in 9.7.1999 and in which the suit land came into the share of his father i.e. defendant No.1, but it continued in the name of defendants No.2 to 8 in the revenue record. Thereafter, defendant No.1 has sold the land with the help of defendants No.2 to 8 in favour of defendants No. 9 and 10, hence the sale-deed is void and not binding on him. Both the Courts below have recorded the concurrent finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant No.1 got the land bearing Survey No.2 area 2.15 Hect. by way of partition. For a part of this land, defendant No.1 also filed the civil suit challenging the sale-deed executed by the plaintiff in the name of his sons. The said suit had already been dismissed, therefore, plaintiff as well defendant No.1 both have failed to prove that defendant no.1 got the Survey No.2 area 2.15 Hect by way of partition. Since the date of partition i.e. 9.7.1999, names of defendants No.2 to 8 are recorded as owners in the revenue record and since then, the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 both have not challenged the same. Even otherwise, the core issue involved in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff is having any right in the ancestral property during the life time of his father ?

The plaintiff in his cross-examination has admitted that 27-28 years ago i.e. after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. As per his allegation that the land bearing Survey No.2 area 2.15 Hect. received by his father after the death of from his grandfather and being a son, he is having birth right in the said property. The apex Court in the case of Uttam V/s. Saubhag Singh : AIR 2016 SC 1169 has held that during life time of father, son cannot claim any right in the ancestral property or the property belonging to grandfather. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court both the Courts below have not committed any error while dismissing the suit.

The plaintiff is claiming half share in the ancestral property of his forefather. If he has filed the civil suit then he ought to have included all the legal heirs as defendants in the suit. The plaintiff has not included the entire land belonging to Siddhanath singh and did not implead sisters of defendant No.1. So far as land bearing Survey Nos. 47 and 52 are concerned, the plaintiff pleaded that the said lands were purchased by defendant No.1 from the income of joint Hindu family property. He has failed to prove the same by way of documentary as well as oral evidence. Once the suit has been dismissed as not maintainable, then other issues are not liable to be decided.

Even otherwise, the first appellate Court has examined the share of the plaintiff in Survey No.2 and held that his 1/4 share comes to 0.530 Hect. and despite that he has sold 0.870 Hect. of land to his sons Gulshan and Rajesh and likewise, defendants No.9 and 10 being sons of defendant No.1 have got their share accordingly. If the plaintiff is challenging the sale-deed in favour of defendants No.9 and 10, then, he ought to have impleaded his own sons also in the suit who purchased the part of the land.

The plaintiff has claimed half share in Survey Nos.52 and 47. Learned first appellate Court in Para 29, 30 and 31 has considered the evidence of the plaintiff and held that he is not having any share in the said land. Para 29, 30 and 31 are reproduced below :

"29 जहां तक सर्वे कमांक 52 एवं सर्वे कमांक 47 के सुन्दरबाई से प्रतिवादी कमांक 10 अशोक के नाम कय की गयी विवादित भूमि में अपीलार्थी का 1/2 हिस्सा होने का प्रश्न है, अपीलार्थी निर्मयसिंह ने अपने कथन का कंडिका 16 में सुन्दरबाई से उक्त जमीन 30 वर्ष पूर्व खरीदने का सौदा सालगराम द्वारा किया जाना बताया है जमीन 6000 रूपये में खरीदी गयी होना बताया है, जिसमें से आधा धन 3000 रूपये अपने द्वरा रमेशचंद्र पुत्र मानसिंह के मार्फत सुन्दरबाई को दिया जाना बताया है और वाद प्रस्तुति के समय उसने अपनी आयु 40 वर्ष होना बतायी है, अतः प्रत्यर्थीगण अधिवक्ता का यह तर्क उचित प्रतीत होता है कि उस समय निर्भयसिंह की आयु लगभग 12 से 15 वर्ष होनी चाहिये। निर्भयसिंह ने अपने कथन में कंडिका 29 में यह स्वीकार किया है कि वह अपने पिता से सन 2004 में अलग हुआ है, इसके पहले से शामिल शरीक रहते थे, ऐसी दशा में अवयस्क अपीलार्थी का सुन्दरबाई को विकीत भूमि के प्रतिफल में अपने द्वIरा 3000 रूपये दिया जाना अविश्वसनीय है, क्योंकि 12 से 15 वर्षीय बालक की स्वतंत्र आय उस वक्‍त रही होना स्पष्ट साक्ष्य अभाव में मान्य नहीं किया जा सकता है।

30- अपीलार्थी के कथन की कंडिका 16 अनुसार सुंदरबाई से भूमि खरीदने के लिये सालगराम ने उसकी सर्वे नंबर 965 ,/3 रकबा 334 हेक्टर भूमि अमरसिंह पुत्र घासीराम व देवीसिहं पुत्र भागीरथ कुलमी को दिनांक 1. 6.89 को विकय की थी और उस समय तक प्रतिवार्दी कं०010 का जन्म भी नहीं हुआ था। ग्राम दुपाड़ा के खाता कमांक 5,/2 सन 1999 संवत 2056 में सालगराम का हिस्सा 1/4 था, जिसमें कुल 5 सर्वे नंबर थे, जिनका रकबा 7.370 हेक्टर था। सर्वे नंबर 52 एवं 47 की भूमि सुन्दरबाई से कय करने के लिये संयुक्त हिन्दू परिवार के सर्वे नंबर 965 ,//3 की 0.334 हेक्टर भूमि बेची गयी थी, इसलिये रजिस्टर्ड विकय पत्र दिनांक 30.6.2000 द्वारा सालगराम ने प्रतिवादी अशोक कुमार के नाम से 1,99,000 रूपये में सर्वे नंबर 52 व 47 की जो भूमि संदरबाई से कय की है, उसमें अपीलार्थी का 1./2 हिस्सा है। इस प्रकार अपीलार्थी ने प्रतिवादी कमांक 4 सालगराम के अन्य खाता कमांक 5,/2 का भी उल्लेख किया है। यदि सालगराम के पास उन्‍य किसी खाते में भी कोई भूमि है तो अपीलार्थी को उस भूमि को भी शामिल करके संपूर्ण पेतृक भूमि में अपने हिस्से के बंटवारे की मांग करनी चाहिये, वह आधी अधूरी सम्पत्ति में बंटवारे की मांग नहीं कर सकता है। इस संबंध में न्याय दृष्टांत जनोतीबाई बनाम राजोबाई 1985 एम0पी0विकली नोट्स नोट 400 का न्याय दृष्टांत अवलोकनीय है जिसमें यह अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि ' सम्पूर्ण शामिल करते हुए बंटवारे की मांग की जानी चाहिये।"

31-. ऐसी स्थिति में सालगराम को यह स्पष्ट करना चाहिये कि बंटवारे में सालगराम को सर्वे नंबर 2 की भूमि के अलावा अन्य कौन सी भूमि प्राप्त हुई थी और उनमें से अन्य किसी भूमि के संबंध में अपीलार्थी द्वारा अपना कोई हिस्सा क्‍यों नहीं बताया जा रहा है। अतः जब तक अपीलार्थी जिस भूमि को सुन्दरबाई को प्रतिफल अदायगी के लिये उपरोक्त लोगों को विकय किया जाना बता रहा है, उस भूमि में भी सालगराम का पुत्र होने के नात उसका कोई हिस्सा है या यदि नहीं, तो क्‍यों नहीं है, इस स्थिति को स्पष्ट करते हुए वाद प्रस्तुत करना चाहिये था ताकि सम्पूर्ण पैत्रिक सम्पत्ति का रकबा एवं उसमें अपीलार्थी का हिस्सा स्पष्ट हो सके। उसने आधे तथ्यों के साथ वाद प्रस्तुत किया है, जो भ्रम की स्थिति निर्मित करता है और यह प्रमाणित नहीं माना जा सकता कि प्रत्यर्थी सालगराम ने अपीलार्थी के साथ संयुक्त रूप से पैतृक स्वामित्व की भूमि को बेचकर प्रत्यर्थी कमांक 10 के पक्ष में सुंदरबाई से प्रणपी013 का विकय पत्र दिनांक 30.6.2000 को निष्पादित कराया था। अत: इस न्यायालय के मत में विचारणीय बिन्दु कमांक 2, ३ और 4 में वर्णित तथ्य विधिवत प्रमाणित नहीं है।

Therefore, in view of the above, both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding and so far as questions of law are concerned, the plaintiff being the son cannot claim share in the ancestral property during life time of his father as held by the apex Court in the case of Uttam (supra).

Even otherwise, the Apex Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar : (1999) 3 SCC 722, has held as under:

It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact, being the first appellate court. It is true that the lower appellate court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it is found that the appellate court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.

If the question of law termed as a substantial ques-tion stands already decided by a larger Bench of the High Court concerned or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or by the Supreme Court, its merely wrong application on the facts of the case would not be termed to be a substantial question of law. Where a point of law has not been pleaded or is found to be arising between the parties in the absence of any factual format, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of the facts, the documentary evidence or the meaning of entries and the contents of the document cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. But where it is found that the first appellate court has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, the same can be adjudicated in the second appeal, treating it as a substantial question of law. Where the first appellate court is shown to have exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, it cannot be termed to be an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. This Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Ramkrishna Govind Morey [AIR 1976 SC 830]held that whether the trial court should not have exercised its jurisdiction differently is not a question of law justifying interference.

In case of Laxmidevamma v. Ranganath : (2015) 4 SCC 264, again the Apex court has held as under:

Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plain-tiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for reappreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs' right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.

Recently, the Apex Court in case of Adiveppa & Others Vs. Bhimappa & Others : (2017) 9 SCC 586 has held as under:

"17. Here is a case where two Courts below, on appreciating the entire evidence, have come to a conclusion that the Plaintiffs failed to prove their case in relation to both the suit properties. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts, which do not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law, are binding on this Court.

It is more so when these findings are neither against the pleadings nor against the evidence and nor contrary to any provision of law. They are also not perverse to the extent that no such findings could ever be recorded by any judicial person. In other words, unless the findings of facts, though concurrent, are found to be extremely perverse so as to affect the judicial conscious of a judge, they would be binding on the Appellate Court."

In view of the above, this appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law and the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.