The High Court disposed of a second appeal against dismissal of a partition suit, emphasizing that substantial questions of law are rare unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
Appeal dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
?V
x of N
3
‘\J/ \I THE: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
cl,
Second AEBeal No. \3
12002
APPELLANTS : l. Inder Sai S/o Ganga, aged 28 years. PLAINTIFFS: Penbaso widow o'f Ganga. age 50 yrs. f2? 5"” Both resident of village- Udari. f i‘ah. Lundra, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). V E R S U S RESPONDENTS l. (a) Samar Sai s/o Kharkat, age 45 yrs DEFENDANTS (b) Kumhar S/o Kharkat.aged 40 Years > Latiyarin D/g Nanh aged 36 yrs. 1r ‘ Eudha S/o Nanh, aged 33 years. All resident of village«Udari, Tah. Lundra, Distt.$urg1;ja (C.G.) M.P.(Chhattisgarh) Govt. Through : C:::E$§L Surguja pRoCEmRE, AGAmeT JUEGW'I? AND DECREE 13mm BY THE D4S'I‘RICT JUmE, AyB UR. SURGUJA IN C.LVIL APPEAL N0. seqA/semN DATED 2e—12-2001. w e I :r?‘
.496
mmm ammm ‘ SB: Han’ble Shri Justice 11-04-2014 Shri Sushi! Dubey, co nsel forthe appeliant. Shri Akhil AgrawaL PL or the State. Heard on admission. (1) This is piaintiffs’ Seco d Appeal underSeciion100oftheCode of Civil Procedure (forsh rt ‘the CPC’) against the judgmentand decree dated 20.12.2001 passed by District Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja in Civii Appeal N . 69-N99, affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.8.1991 assed by First Civil Judge, Class ii, Ambikapur in Civii SuitNo. 0-A/84, dismissing the suit. {Forsakeofconvenience,t e parties wouid be referredhereinafteras pertheirstatusbeforethetr I Court] {2) in a suit tiled by plai tiffs namely Inder Sai &Penbasoforre- partition of the scheduled uit property, the trial recorded a finding that the suit property, bel nging to both plaintiffsanddefendants’ family, have already beens bjected to partitioninthe year1977and the said partition has not be n proved to be donebyfraudand parties are with peacefui possessi of the suit property in accordance with the said partition,therefore the instant suit filedbythe piaintiffsfor re-partition of the scheduledsuit propertyisnotmaintainable. ’\
3W W.:§HW‘3. N
if?
7" 2(i maf'W W
| mm im |
} | |
|---|---|---|
| WEHIW | l | éa‘ev'i'mmE'k’1 manta trrtnvr‘i a @Qt Ital-err |
| {$) First appeal preferre judgment and decree impu (4) Mr. Dubey, learned co would submit the concurr below declining to grant d give rise a substantial ques (5) perused records of both the {6i lt is well settled that t —’ l have heard learned the parties, the suit for re the first partition suffers fro |
there-against was aiso dismissed vide ned. nsel appearing forthe appeHants/piainiiffs nt findings recorded by both the courm cree of re—partition is perverse and that on of iaw for determination in this appeal. courts below. hat once the partition is affected between artition is not maintainabte in law untess counsel appearing for the appellant and fraud. |
|
| (7) after perusing the records that the aforesaid findings findings of facts based on find it either perverse or c much less substantial questi After hearing learnec |
counsei appearing for the appellant and iaf both the courts below carefully, l find ntrary to record and no question of law n of law is involved in this appeal. recorded by both the courts below are terial available on record and l do not 1‘ a |
|
| (3) Recently, the Supr Agrawai, S/a Sitaram Agr held that High Court shoul |
me Court in the case of Vishwanath al Vs. Sarla Wshwanath Agrawal’ has d not disturb the concurrent finding of fact, |
....
XX»HC‘-78
| war m " 1H; ZO mm (W) |
|
|---|---|
| mammm‘a; ‘ am 31m!mm- |
$aim31r<$1 I W3W% f?é}m ”5 |
| ‘ l |
umess finding recorded aré perverse being based on no evidence. Para-36, 37 ef report as un er:- " ;‘36 In Major Si h Vs Ratfan Singhz it has been 'ebserved that whe the eourts belew had rejected and Vdis‘b‘eiieved the evid nce on unacceptable grounds! it is ' ‘th’e‘Huty of the High ourt to consider whether the reasons given by the courts below are sustainabie in iaw while : hearing an appeal uhder Section 100 of the Code of Civii Procedure. I 37 in Vidhyadhan Manikrao3 it has been ruled that the y:- H‘iéh Court in a s .ond appeal should not disturb the J *é‘éri‘current findings of fact unless it is shown that the 1‘ findings recorded by the Courts below are pen/erse being ‘ wgwbé'sed on no evidencle or that on the evidence on record no reasonable person 'ould have come to that conclusion. We may note here that soleiy because another view is possibie on the ba’is of the evidence, the High Court would not be entitl d to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the ode of Civil Procedure. This view of ours has been forti ed by the decisions of this Court in Abdul Raheem v, raka Electricity Board." K ; a |
| (9) Keeping in view, th ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below is ba, ed on evidence, no substantial question of law is involved in this. appeal, thus appeal deserves to and accordingly dismissed at a ission stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sanjay K. Agrawa! ‘i Judge (1997) 3 SCC 546: AIR 1997 C i906 l (1999) 3 SCC 573 I i eowm i WWI‘SWS6‘9W‘M‘“ d. |
Inder Sai S/o Ganga
Penbaso widow o'f Ganga
Samar Sai s/o Kharkat
Kumhar S/o Kharkat
Ratan D/g Nanh
Nasha S/o Nanh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
