Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 125 (MP)

Nand Ram Jatav v. Ramprasad

2014-01-27

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
ORDER 1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2010 passed by the Court of IVth ADJ, Bhind in Civil Appeal No.33A of 2009, confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2008 passed by the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Class I, Lahar District Bhind in Civil Suit No.340A of 2004 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed holding that the plaintiff has failed to produce any document in support of his contention raised in the suit. In this appeal, the appellant is referred to as “plaintiff” and the respondent No.1 as “defendant'. 2. The facts in brief of the plaint are that the land bearing Survey No.933/1 Total area 1.000 Hectare situated in village Asnet mentioned in para 1 of the plaint (hereinafter would be referred to as the 'disputed land') is of the ownership and in possession of the plaintiff but on the contrary, it is recorded in the name of defendant. The defendant is unmarried and family member of plaintiff being cousin of his Grandfather Baldev. He used to reside with the plaintiff and plaintiff has also repaid the loan of Rs.10,000/- taken by the defendant in consideration of the same the land could be deemed to have been purchased by the plaintiff but the other family members are inducing him to sell the land in dispute being recorded in his name in revenue papers taking benefit of his old age and deteriorating mental condition. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession and permanent injunction against the defendant. 3. The defendant has not filed any written statement in the matter. 4. After framing of the one issue, recording evidence of the plaintiff and having considered the recorded evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant as stated above. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal has been filed as stated herein above. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 7. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal has been filed as stated herein above. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts below have committed error in dismissing the suit as the defendant Ramprasad neither denied the allegations of the plaint nor did he produce any evidence in rebuttal of the plaintiff's evidence, owing to which, the evidence produced by the plaintiff ought not to have been discarded by both the Courts below. 8. It is true that the defendant remained absent before the trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court and did not contest the suit but in spite of this fact, the suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be decreed unless allegations of the plaint and title are proved by the reliable evidence. In this regard, both the Courts having considered the evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. 9. As per plaintiff's evidence, he has claimed his title on the basis of possession for more than 15-16 years. The said facts have not been corroborated by the Khasra entries. The mere assertions do not make the plaintiff entitled to the relief sought by him. Besides it, the plaintiff has further taken the stand that he had purchased the land from the defendant for consideration of Rs.10,000/- but neither the document for purchasing the land was got registered nor the aforesaid document has been produced on record. The oral statement regarding purchase of land is meaningless. Owing to which, the said stand is not found credible. Although the plaintiff has tried to prove his case from different view points, yet both the Courts did not find his story as well as the evidence credible. On perusal of the judgments of both the Courts and evidence on record, it is concluded that both the Courts have rightly considered the evidence and dismissed the suit. It is evident that both the Courts have concurred in respect of facts and findings. Hence, no substantial question of law crops up for consideration in this appeal. 10. Thus, the appeal being meritless and insubstantial is hereby dismissed. 11. It is evident that both the Courts have concurred in respect of facts and findings. Hence, no substantial question of law crops up for consideration in this appeal. 10. Thus, the appeal being meritless and insubstantial is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to the costs. Let the decree be drawn up accordingly. Therefore, the appeal being meritless and insubstantial, is hereby dismissed.