Ram Khilavan vs Ram Lal

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

This appeal is by the plaintiff, who has lost in both the Courts.

Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff filed the suit inter-alia on the ground that the passage, which is situate on eastern side of the house of the defendants is 14 feet in width. The plaintiff was using the aforesaid passage for about 25 years. However, on 05.01.2003, the defendants reduced the width of the passage by placing poles and started interfering with the plaintiff''s right to use the passage in question. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction.

The defendants filed the written statement, in which the claim of the plaintiff was inter-alia denied. It was further pleaded that the passage in question is 3 feet in width. Thereafter, on the decision of Panchayat, the defendants had given 4 feet land belonging to them and the width of the passage became 7 feet.

The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.09.2004 dismissed the suit. The aforesaid decree was affirmed in appeal by the Lower Appellate Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective, which has resulted in erroneous finding and the consequent decree.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. Both the Courts below on the basis of the report submitted by the Commissioner has held that the width of the passage is 7 feet. The Courts below have taken into account the oral and documentary evidence in recording the aforesaid finding. The question as to whether the width of the passage is 7 feet or 14 feet, is a pure question of fact. The aforesaid findings of fact, which are concurrent in nature are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which, by no stretch of imagination, can either be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to dislodge the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below in this regard.

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, , Hafazat Hussain Vs. 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 Vanchalabai Raghunath Ithape (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Shankarrao Baburao Bhilare (D) by L.Rs. and Others, .

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