AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 14/01/2015, passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.8-A/2007 by the learned Additional District Judge, Circuit Court, Bhanpura, District - Mandsaur, by which the judgment and decree dated 7/04/2007, passed in C.O.S. No.1-A/2000, by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhanpura, District - Mandsaur has been affirmed and the suit of the appellants for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed. Hence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
The appellants have filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with regard to agricultural land situated at Survey No.12, area 3.294 hectares at village Lotkhedi, Tehsil - Bhanpura, District - Mandsaur.
In the paint, the appellants have stated that the aforesaid land was granted to the priest of the temple of Lord Shri Baijnatheswar Mandir by the erstwhile Holkar State as a Inam Land to the ancestors of the defendant no.3 Trilokchand. That, in the plaint, as per Section 35 of Inam Enquiry Rules, an Inam Certificate was granted to the ancestors of defendant no.3. Around 60 years back, from the date of institution of the suit, the land was handed over to the father of the plaintiff of the appellant namely Ramsukh Bhatnagar for cultivation by the ancestors of the defendant no.3 on the condition of payment of Revenue Tax. It is further stated that Late Ramsukh Bhatnagar, by putting a lot of toil and labour, has made the land cultivable. After the death of Late Shri Ramsukhji, the plaintiff/appellant(s) remained in possession of the land and continuously paid the tax of the land. It has further been stated in the plaint that, after enforcement of MPLRC the appellants/ plaintiffs had obtained Bhumiswami rights in the aforesaid land.
It has been further stated in the plaint that in the Revenue Records, the name of plaintiff was regularly appearing, but without giving any intimation or opportunity of hearing, the name of Collector has been mutated on the disputed land in the revenue Records and on the instance of defendant no.3, a case under Sections 248 of the MPLRC has been registered against the plaintiff in the year 1999. After having the knowledge of the above fact that plaintiff sent a legal notice on 20/12/1999 and, thereafter, filed the present suit.
The respondents/defendant have filed a written statement and denied all the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint.
The trial Court after framing issues and recording the evidence of both the parties has partly decreed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The appellants have challenged the same before the Appellate Court, but the learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 14/01/2015 has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved by that judgment and decree, the appellants /plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the land was granted as a Inam Land to the ancestors of the defendant no.3 by erstwhile Holker Govt. and being the Inamdar the father of the defendant no.3 has acquired the absolute right on the aforesaid land. He further submits that the learned trial Court has erred in holding that the pleading of the plaint is not supported with the evidence and, therefore, the finding of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. In such circumstances and looking to the other facts and circumstances of the case, he submits that the appeal deserves to be admitted.
I have gone through the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and have also perused the record. The judgment passed by both the Courts below are well reasoned and are based on due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. The findings recorded by the Courts below are the concurrent findings of facts. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show that how the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases has held that in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the findings of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse and based on no evidence. Some of these judgments are Hajazat Hussain vs. Abdul Majeed & others, 2011 (7) SCC, 189, Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012 (8) SCC 148 and Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, 2012 (7) SCC, 288.
For the aforesaid reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.