Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 930 (MP)

Aashish Sharma v. Suresh Sharma

2015-09-03

ROHIT ARYA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal by plaintiff, under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.1.2014 passed by Ist ADJ, Bhind in Civil Appeal No.50-A/2012, whereby judgment and decree dated 5.7.2011 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.52-A/2009 was affirmed. The trial Court had dismissed the suit for declaration of title and injunction, as well as, for declaration of sale deeds dated 7.1.2009 and 16.7.2008 as null and void. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the following effect: 4. Defendants No.1 to 4 being real brothers and sisters, are children of defendant No.1 Jivaram and defendant No.6 Mahadevi. Petitioner-Plaintiff is the grand-son of defendant No.1, being son of Suresh who is son/legal representative of defendant No.1 and defendant No.5 is the daughter-in-law of defendant No.1 and wife of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 Jivaram, Pahalwan and Ramnaresh were real brothers and son of Ganga Prasad. On 7.1.2009 and 16.7.2008, defendant No.1 Jivaram executed two sale deeds in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of the land in question. 5. Plaintiff filed a suit for the aforesaid reliefs inter alia contending that the suit land is an ancestral property of plaintiff and defendants. Defendant No.1 did not have any right to transfer the same in favour of defendant No.5 by execution of sale deed. Neither there was any legal necessity nor any debt due, for discharge whereof the sale deeds were executed. 6. Defendants No.1, 2 and 5 filed their submissions and denied plaint allegations inter alia contending that suit land was of the ownership of defendant No.1 Jivaram, which he had purchased out of his own earning 50 years ago. It is denied that the suit land was his ancestral property and, therefore, defendant No.1 was fully competent to transfer the suit land in favour of defendant No.5. Besides, it is submitted that defendants No.2 and 5 had sufficient funds to have purchased the aforesaid land. 7. Defendants No.3, 4, 6 and 7 remained ex parte. Trial Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. 8. Upon evaluation of the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff had failed to prove that the suit land was an ancestral land. 7. Defendants No.3, 4, 6 and 7 remained ex parte. Trial Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. 8. Upon evaluation of the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff had failed to prove that the suit land was an ancestral land. The trial Court dealt with this aspect while answering issues No.1 and 2 in paragraphs 9 to 11 of its judgment. It has been found that by registered sale deed dated 7.4.1972 (Ex.D-1) and two sale deeds dated 20.7.1968 (Exs.D-2 and D-3), different parcels of land by registered sale deeds from different sellers were purchased. The suit land is part of the said land, which was of the ownership of defendant No.1. Plaintiff was found to have failed to prove that the suit land is an ancestral property. Consequently, the trial Court found that the sale deeds in question have been validly executed while dealing with issue No.3 and held that the plaintiff was not entitled for permanent injunction. 9. All the issues (seven in number) have been dealt with by the trial Court with due advertence to the oral and documentary evidence on record independently. The trial Court has discussed issues No.1 and 2 as regards the disputed property being that of Joint Hindu Family, and, regarding joint ownership of plaintiff and defendants in paragraphs 9 to 11; issue No.3 as regards validity of the sale deeds dated 16.7.2008 and 7.1.2009 in paragraph 12; issues No.4 and 7 as regards entitlement of the plaintiff for permanent injunction and costs in paragraph 15 and issues No.5 and 6 as regards valuation of suit and jurisdiction of the trial Court in paragraphs 13 and 14 of its judgment. 10. The first appellate Court dealt with the entire evidence on record and concurred with the findings of the trial Court. It has been found that the plaintiff had failed to prove by oral and documentary evidence that the property in question was ancestral property. That apart, in view of sale deeds (Exs. D-1, D-2 and D-3) and entries in the revenue records (Exs. D-4 and D-5), it has been found that the suit land being of the ownership of defendant No.1, was duly recorded in the revenue records. Accordingly, the first appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 11. That apart, in view of sale deeds (Exs. D-1, D-2 and D-3) and entries in the revenue records (Exs. D-4 and D-5), it has been found that the suit land being of the ownership of defendant No.1, was duly recorded in the revenue records. Accordingly, the first appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as per the provision contained in sub-rule (6) of rule 154 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Court Rules, the trial Court has not dealt with the issues properly. 12. Having perused the aforesaid rule and the judgment of the trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has dealt with each and every issue independently with due advertence to the evidence on record and it is incorrect to say that the trial Court decided them by common discussion on issues/points, but elaborate and detailed discussion qua different issues has been recorded by the trial Court in different paragraphs. 13. That apart, on merits also, both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts based on appreciation of evidence on record. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration, warranting interference under section 100 of the Code. 14. The appeal being bereft of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed.