Dismissed

Awdhesh and Another v. Somar Sai and Others

Chhattisgarh HC4 Feb 2014SA/233/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a second appeal, dismissed the appellant's challenge to the lower courts' finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish title over suit property due to lack of title deeds and reliance on revenue records only. The court held that concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed under Section 100 CPC unless perverse.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed at admission; no order as to costs.

Awdhesh and Another Vs Somar Sai and Others — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN TIE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TESGARH AT BILASP‘UB‘
.—wwuuw.mm.wuwwum".wmmgm‘w
'No.’2«93:0F
A329EAL 2003
£09m
gmgég B mm
’i‘.
: Awdesh, $on o£ Rambran,
£§IELLANT$
m aged about 38 years,
Occupation 'Cu1tivator
{f
Rajesh Kumar, Son o£
’27“
Rambran, aged about
/
22 years
( goth are resident of village i‘
Kh‘érji, Tahsil - Ambikapur
Dist-t ; Surguja ( CG ).
‘
1'.“ Somarsai; Son of late
m
Ramratan, aged about
DEFENDANE$
' so years; j
Shivnath Das, Son of late
v2.
f‘ Shri Ramratan, aged
about 65 years ( Dead )
( Bo are resident of village
iiV;“
Kharji, Tahsil — Ambikapur
Distt - Surguja ( CG ).
3 State o£ Chhattisgarh <
through .. Collector,
/
CG.
M a.
EVIDRANDW.u...—.—-._ OF AP§AL UNDEBmnm. SECTION 100 OF TEE C_O’wD_E
x 93 CIVIL Hggrgvm,“ 1908.
N

¶2

¶3

a E

¶4

Second^{AgpealNo.233o£} 209_3 and another^. Awdhesh APPELLMTS^/ Plaintiffs & & others Soma^{rs ai} RES?ONDENTS Others^. De£endants

¶5

‘SECEI <»t100<X?THE<xxm:gg UNDER 1908 §ECOND^APPEAL FROCEDURE‘ CIVIL

¶6

for the appellants. counsel the Pandey, for PL Agrawal, Akhil Shri No. 3. State/re$pondent ORDER ORAL Ol4) on O4.02.2 (Passed the For sake of co^nvenience, on admission. (l) Heard thei^r as per he}:^eihaEter wou ld be referred parties Court. the trial before statue the against Appeal Second This is plaintiffs’ a^nd (2) by L passed 15.1.2003 datedg and decree judgment Appeal in Civil Ambikapur Judge, District Additional dated nt and decree the judgme af^{fi rming} No^. 7 4~A/2002, KI, Class Judge, by Vth Civil 12.09.19⁹⁵ passed the diemieeing Su^it No. 51wA/1995, in Civil Ambikapur _::\ suit. \‘ plaintiirs' are \ of this appeal for dispose; necessary f‘acte (3} a suit for dec^laration have f iled \ the p1aintiffs that: x

¶7

2 I W?‘

¶8

and permanent injunction stating that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession over the suit land. (4) The trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 12.9.1995 dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit finding inter alia on the basis of revenue records Ex.P-2 & Ex. D—l, it cannot be held that plaintiffs have perfected their title by way 0f adverse possession. (5) The plaintiffs preferred first appeal thereagainst. The first appellate court, after re— appreciatngi the entire evidence adduced in the case, af firmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, leading to filing of this Second Appeal under S ection IOO of teh Code of Civil Procedure. (6) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the patiesr and pusered the records of both the courts below including j udgment and decree impugned. (6)“ It is well settled that in order to establish their case, plaintiffs have to file title deeds demonstrating the title in order to grant temporary injunction.

¶9

(7} The Supreme Court in case of Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Co—oE. Housing Sociegy Ltd. and

¶10

othersl has held that revenue records are not documents of title. Paragraph 17 of report as under:— “l7. This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. In Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and “it another, (1989) 3 SCC 612 held that is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law.” In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC 349 thie Court hae “that held that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title.” In State of Himaohal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996) ll SCC 257 this “the Court, held that entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff.”

¶11

(8) The trial Court as well as the by First Appellate Court, on the basis of evidence available on record, have concurrently reached to a categorical conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to establish their title over the suit property as no title deeds have filed demonstrating their title over the suit property. The said finding recorded by both the courts below are finding of fact based on material available on record and I do.not find it either perverse or contrary to record and no question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. y

¶12

k 1 2014 (1) Scale 126

¶13

(9) Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath ‘Agrawal, 5/0 Sitaram Agrawal Vs. $arla Vishwanath Agrawalz has held that High CQurt should n ot disturb the concurrent finding of fact, unless finding recorded are perverse being based on no evidence. Para—36, 37 of report as under:~

¶14

“36. In Major Singh Vs. Rattan Singh3 it has been observed that when the courts below had rejected and disbelieved the evidence on unacceptable grounds, it is the duty of the High Court to coneider whether the reasons given by the courts below are sustainable in law while hearing an appeal under Section IOO of the Code of Civil Procedure. 37. In Vidhyadhan Vs. Manikrao4 it has been ruled that the High Court in a second appeal should not disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. We may note here that solely because another View is possible on the basis of the evidence, the High Court would not be entitled to exercise the jurisdiction under Section IOO of the Code of Civil Procedure. This View of ours has been fortified by the decisions of this Court in Abdul Raheem V. Karnaraka Electrici ty Board5.” (10) Keeping in view, the 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 based on evidence, no substantial question of law involved in this appeal, thus appeal deserves is

¶15

2 (2012)^{7 scc288} 43^{(1997)3.scc546: AIR1997sc1906} (1999)^{3 scc573} 5 (2007)^{14SCC138: £R2008 SC956}

¶16

to and accordingly dismissed at admission itself. No order as to cost.

¶17

stage

¶18

Sdk Sanjay K. Agrawal f^,Judge

¶19

Va, ,1

Awdhesh and Another v. Somar Sai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awdhesh and Another v. Somar Sai 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

Thanu Ram Sahu and Ors. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Bhagwatin Bai and Ors. Vs Nathuram and Anr.

Mahendra Kumar Agrawal Vs Smt. Kamla Bai Agrawal and Ors.

Dhanesh Das Vs Radhamohan Das and Anr.

Ram Singh Thakur Vs Sabera Bai

Maniram and Another Vs Suhagdayee and Others