Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 716 (MP)

Ramsiromani Pav v. Chhotelal Singh Gond

2015-07-13

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 25.7.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.54-A/2011 by the District Judge, Shahdol affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2011 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.11-A/2011 by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed. 3. The appellant/plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.11-A/2011 before the trial Court for declaration of sale deed dated 17.9.2007 as null and void. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration of registered sale deed of land bearing Khasra No.521 admeasuring area 0.162 hectare, khasra No.522 admeasuring area 0.182 hectare total admeasuring 0.344 hectare, situated at Village Bela, Tahsil Sohagpur as null and void. It is pleaded by the plaintiff/appellant that defendant/respondent No.1 got executed registered sale deed in his favour on 18.9.2007 from the plaintiff by playing fraud without the payment of any sale consideration in relation to area 0.182 hectare of Khasra No.522 whereas he agreed to sale his land measuring area 0.162 hectare of Khasra No.521, situated at Village Bela, Tahsil Sohagpur for which he received sale consideration but since he is illiterate, two lands are shown in the sale deed by fraud, therefore, the plaintiff/appellant filed the present suit for declaration of sale deed dated 18.9.2007 as null and void. Respondent No.1 by filing written statement denied the plaint averments, inter alia, contending that by purchasing the land bearing Khasra No.521 and Khasra No.522, both, for consideration of Rs.19,500/- by him from the plaintiff, he obtained possession. The defendant No.1 from the date of registered sale deed, is in possession of the disputed land and is doing agriculture on it. It is also pleaded that plaintiff, by receiving consideration of the purchase land, has executed sale deed on 17.9.2007 in his favour happily and the plaintiff, himself, put the sale deed before the Sub Registrar, for execution. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff known regarding sale of both the khasra numbers to the defendant No.1. A forged and fabricated suit has been filed by the plaintiff against him so that he demanded illegal money from him. In these premises, defendant No.1 prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The respondent No.2 had not filed any written-statement before the trial Court. 5. A forged and fabricated suit has been filed by the plaintiff against him so that he demanded illegal money from him. In these premises, defendant No.1 prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The respondent No.2 had not filed any written-statement before the trial Court. 5. The trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence, dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26.7.2011 by holding that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to prove that the defendant No.1 executed sale deed dated 17.9.2007 from him fraudulently. Against the said judgment and decree, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred civil appeal before the first appellant Court. 6. The appellate Court while affirming the finding given by the trial Court, has dismissed the appeal by holding that there is no clinching evidence available on record to show that the disputed land has been obtained by the defendant No.1 from the plaintiff fraudulently by executing sale deed dated 17.9.2007. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff/ appellant has filed this second appeal. 7. 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 on record. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show that how the findings of facts 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. 8. The Supreme Court in number of cases has held that in exercise of powers under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure can interfere with the finding of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse and based on no evidence. Some of these judgments are -Hajazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and others [(2011)7 SCC 189], Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, [ (2012)8 SCC 148 ] and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal [ (2012)7 SCC 288 ]. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.