Dismissed

Mohar Das v. Brij Mohan Ram and Others

Chhattisgarh HC3 Apr 2014SA/203/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this defendant's second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage. The Court held that the lower courts' findings regarding succession and property title were based on evidence and were neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court refused to disturb the concurrent findings under Section 100 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against the judgment of lower courts affirming the title of Amardas as owner of suit property was dismissed at admission stage.

Mohar Das Vs Brij Mohan Ram and Others — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

.1^'

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.G.l

& SECOND APPEAL N0.

/ 2003

W'S

AEPELLANT

Mohar Das, S/o Ranjeet Das, Aged About 50 years, R/o Village Karabel, P.S.&Tahsil Sitapur , Distt. Sarguja .(Chhattisgarh)

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Brijinohan ram son of Shri Shri Dilram caste Bargaah, aged about 30 years,

¶11

RESPONDENTS 1) Brijinohan ram son of Shri Shri Dilram
caste Bargaah, aged about
years,
2> Kalawati wife of Amardas, aged
s^>":.;.-^'<^ about 45 years, years,
fi€%--'' ,3) Senchuri, wife of Amardas, aged
about 30 years years
^^^:>" ^v <y
-<)
A*' •<;*r ... Yashwant, son of Late An-iaryas,
<^°^ aged about 10 years (Minor)
v^
.:...-''' y Bagbeer, son of Late Amardas,
...f' ./ aged about 6 years years (Minor)
^/^€ M J/& >'si ^ Sl.No.their 4naturalandand 5 areminorsguardian throughrriother
.K '^ Sl.No. 3 Senchuribai, i
^
all are residents of village
€s~ ^y'
Sarwaana Bhandar, P.S. and Tah.
Seetapur, Distt. Sarguja
(Chhattisgarh). ,'
6) Shantibai, wife of KarnudasJ KarnudasJ aged
about 27 years, resident of village
Ambikapur, P.S. and |Tah.
Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (G.G.)
(Jlw^
!'7)
./<•' State of Chhattisgarh, through
District Collector Sarguja,
Ambikapur j[Ghhattisgarh) j[Ghhattisgarh) I
SEGOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE,1908
APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 720/-

¶12

Kalawati wife of Amardas, aged about 45 years, years,

¶13

Senchuri, wife of Amardas, aged about 30 years years

¶14

Yashwant, son of Late An-iaryas, aged about 10 years (Minor) Bagbeer, son of Late Amardas, aged about 6 years years (Minor)

¶15

Sl.No.their 4naturalandand 5 areminorsguardian throughrriother their naturaland guardian rriother Sl.No. 3 Senchuribai, i all are residents of village Sarwaana Bhandar, P.S. and Tah. Seetapur, Distt. Sarguja (Chhattisgarh). ,'

¶16

Shantibai, wife of KarnudasJ KarnudasJ aged about 27 years, resident of village Ambikapur, P.S. and |Tah. Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (G.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through : District Collector Sarguja, Ambikapur j[Ghhattisgarh) j[Ghhattisgarh) I

¶17

^,.3B^E, S.

¶18

XI^H'S-78 '^yy;;;^i^^

¶19

3'esT ^II<<I<I, siTfl'y'KS, RfiAiyy

¶20

_^ ...^.. -.A: . .l\ls..-.^5^..o .<.,. .,.»».....*.^....-,^..........^ ^^

¶21

anS?T ^gq; (''pi^a^sT) , sn^i is\ Ki-ii'* '+lticl'fl-l 'qitRfl 'ii.'fs^t 1<$1< ?TaiWdf5tT SII^T 'Q^f .37T^T ^H[<*i ^affin 3ii^i S.B: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICELJUStl SANJAY K. AGRAWAL 03.04.2014: Shri Sushil Dubey, 4ounsei for the appeltarrt. Shri Akhil Agrawal, panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on admissior (1) This is defendant's] No.3 Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civii Pro4edure (for short 'the CPC') against the judgment and decree d^ted 09.01.2003 passed by 5th Additionai District Judge, (FTC), ^mbikapur in Civil Appeai No. 3-A/2CK)2, affirming the judgment ar(d decree dated 17.10.1998 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Ambikap^r in Civil Suit No. 137-A/98, decreeing the suit. [For sake of conveniencej the parties would be referred hereinafter as per theirstatus before the| trial Courtj (2) In a suit fiied by pl^infiff-Brijmohan claiming to be the adopted son of Roop Sai, the trial k^Court recorded a finding after death of Roop Sai, his wife Jugmania in|lerited the suit property, and thereafter, she executed a Will in favouii of Amardas and therefore after her death, Amardas has become th^ owner and title holder of the suit property on the strength of will ^s late Jugmania had died issuless, and decreed the plaintifFs sui E, finding him the purchaser from defendant .1 -Amardas. J k

¶22

lg!!ffl'«« -'

¶23

X]i-HC—78

¶24

3^?r -^ww^, •^•iS\wi<i, ^wwy,

¶25

tiF?c(T st>^!*

¶26

"^ 20

¶27

sw^av 'vw
(4cj(-j«i<^kT)
s^s w R-ii* <hl<tf<lt1t +11 H<^' ^f 'fe1^ ^f^l^l<
^BIW ^lf?g 311^1
'cTSiTT gn^T Sfrqi^ ^? 3lRtT 3D^I
(3) Firet appeal preferrecjl there-against was ateo dismissed vide
judgment and decree impudined.
(4) Mr. Dubey, leamed cou|i|isel appearing for the appeltant/defendant
No.3 would submit the c^ncurrent findings recorded by both the
courts beiow are perverse ^nd that give rise a substantial question of
law for determination in thte1 appeat.
(5) After hearing leamed| counsel appearing for the appeltant and
after perusing the records | of both the courts below carefulty, 1 find
that the aforesaid findings) recorded by bofh the courts below are
findings of facts based on hateriat available on record and 1 do not
find it either perveree or c|3ntrary to record and no question of law
much less substantial ques^(ion of law is involved in this appea!.
(6) Recently, the Supifeme Court in the case of Wshwanatti
Agrawal, S/0 Sitaram Agriywal^wa{ Vs. Sarla Wslwanath Agrawaf has
held that High Court shoulc) not disturb the concurrent flnding of fact,
unless finding recorded ar^^ perverse being based on no evidence.
Para-36, 37 of report as un^ier:-
"36. InMajor^i^ingh Vs. Rattan Singh2 it has been
observed that ^when the courts below had rejected
and disbeliev^d the evidence on unacceptable
grounds, it is| the duty of the High Court to
(2012) 7 SCC 288

¶28

XI-HC—78

¶29

3^?T^{•^WW-'-I,} 9-^\V\6, ^fiftWy.

¶30

•V^ 20

¶31

3n^?T wra; (lc<f'l«<<w) a:n^l ?n R;-< chl-4ld1in'1^'RTOcff ^f.'fe^ <Fa1<<l'(. ^Ti sn^r sti^icb ^3lRpT3II^T consider whether the reasons given by the courts below are sustaitiable in law while hearing an appeal under Se ;tion 100 of the Code of Civi! Procedure. 37. In /idhyadi\an Vs. Man'ikrao it has been ruted that the Hji |gh^{Courtinasecondappeal} should not disturki the concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below arej perverse^{beingbasedonno} evidence or that !on^{theevidenceonrecordno} reasonable pers<(n could have come to that conclusion. We m<^y^{noteherethat solely because} another view is Ipossible^{onthebasisofthe} evidence, the Hig| Court would not be entitled to exercise the juriscjiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Pro|lcedure.^Thisviewof ours has been fortified by |the^{decisionsofthisCourtin} Abdul Raheem V. ^amaraka^{ElectricityBoan^."} Keeping in view, the rttio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, th concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below is base on evidence, no substantial question of law is involved in this a]|>pealI, thus appeal deserves to and accordingly dismissed at admi; jston^{stageitself.Noorder as to costs.} Sd/Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge (1999)^{3 SCC 573} (2007)^{14 SCC138: AIR 200S SC} &56 ±^

Mohar Das v. Brij Mohan Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohar Das v. Brij Mohan Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhugde Kenwat Vs Nanki Kenwat and Others

Bhagwat and Anr. Vs Bhanwar and Ors.

Chowkilal Sahu Vs Vijay Lal and Ors.

Jay Ram and Others Vs Samaru Ram and Another

Chattar Singh and Anr. Vs Dalpratap Singh and Ors.

Surya Kant Tiwari Vs Smt.Bina @ Sanju Tiwari and Anr.