Ramkali Bai vs Ramayan Prasad Gupta

Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff No.1.

By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff

No.2 Geeta Bai vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.07ÂA/2010

affirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 30.11.2009 passed by the learned Fourth Civil Judge ClassÂI, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit

No.3A/2008, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 Geeta Bai.

Mr. Bharat, learned Senior counsel for the appellant/plaintiff No.1, would submit that both the Courts below have committed legal error in

dismissing the suit by recording a finding perverse to the record. As such, the appeal involves substantial question of law for determination and

deserves to be admitted for hearing.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submissions made hereinÂabove and also went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

The suit property was admittedly held by Rama Bai. She sold the property in favour of defendant No.1 by registered sale deed dated 08.01.2002

(ExÂP/6) and thereafter Ramabai died on 14.08.2003. Her two daughters Ramkali and Sitabai filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction

and partition questioning the sale deed dated 08.01.2002 (ExÂP/6) stating that on the basis of the sale deed, no title has been conferred to defendant

No.1, which the Trial Court did not accept and dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court has also affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial

Court in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2.

The finding recorded by the two Courts below holding that Ramabai has rightly alienated the suit property being her own property by registered sale

deed (ExÂP/6) dated 08.01.2002 in favour of defendant No.1 is a pure and simple finding of fact based on the material available on record, which is

neither perverse nor contrary to law.

I do not find any substantial question of law for determination in this second appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without

notice to the other side. No order as to cost (s).