Ramkrapal Awasthi And Others vs Sadhuram Awasthy And Others

Avanindra Kumar Singh, J

This second appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against impugned judgment and decree dated 13.11.2021 passed by Additional District Judge, Nowgong, District Chhattarpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.40-A/2011 [Ramkripak (sinced deceased through LRs. Vs. Sadhuram and others] whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 30.7.2010 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-II, Nowgong, District Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.18-A/2009 [Ramkripak (sinced deceased through LRs. Vs. Sadhuram and others] dismissing the suit of appellants has been affirmed.

2 . The appellants/plaintiffs filed civil suit against defendants seeking relief of declaration of title in respect of suit property bearing Survey No.1363, area 0.405 Are situated in village Naiguwan, Tahsil Nowgong, District Chhatarpur and for prohibiting the defendants No.1 & 2 to interfere with the possession of the appellants/plaintiffs and for permanent injunction to the effect that defendants shall not transfer the suit property.

3 . The learned trial Court rejected the civil suit of the appellants/plaintiffs and on an appeal preferred by them before the first appellate Court the same has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree.

4 . The appellants being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and decree filed instant appeal on the grounds that between the parties there was partition in respect of other properties and thereafter they possession of their respective shares, however, by mistake the suit property was left out. It is also submitted that names of defendants No.1 & 2 were also mentioned in the revenue records but possession over the same is of the appellants/plaintiffs. Therefore, in garb of no proper mutation the defendants are interfering with the possession of the appellants.

5 . Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the courts have erred in recording findings against the facts and there is substantial question of law involved in this appeal and it is liable to be admitted.

6 . Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. Also considered the findings recorded by both the courts in their judgment and decree. Both the courts on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record gave findings on facts and law, which are just and proper.

7 Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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: Narayan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Antoher, (2012) 8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011) 1 SCC 158 Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare, (2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264] 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.

Thus, no substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal. The same being sans substance stands dismissed at admission stage itself.