Dismissed

Smt.Bholi Bai v. Basant and Others

Chhattisgarh HC3 Feb 2014SA/461/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a second civil appeal where the High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage. The court held that the lower courts' concurrent finding of fact regarding the invalidity of a sale deed due to the plaintiff's failure to prove Gharjihan status was not perverse and no substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Smt.Bholi Bai Vs Basant and Others — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

•^

¶2

Sitigfe ,Beoch

¶3

JCN THE HIQH COURT OF Jl?DICATORE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

APPELLANT
/
.'"^t..•'^A^
p<^ /
.^'^.y./'
^^•"r
^..^'
^'RESPCNDENTS J,^
^ ^

¶5

^^^
Av

¶6

<-_ . . •. [ Smt. Bholi Bai widow of late Hira Ram 60 years /: resident of villa@e ©eepadihkaia Police Stationi Shankergarh Tahsil Kusmi ( Samari ) ©istriet Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) •

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Basant son of Ganga Ram aged 35 years resident Qf village Bhirai Tahsil K^ismi (Samari) Mst. Sarguj a ( Chha-fctisgarh ) Defenolent no»1 Ahlad Beek son of Ibrahim Beek agedl 53 years p .h resident Q€ village Durgapnr Tahsil Kusmi Bistt^ l€ Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) Defendent no. 2 J State of Chhattisgarh through ColJLector ^! Sarguja Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh) y Perfoasma ©eft no3 e

¶9

SECOID CIVIL APPEAL UN©ER SECTIQN l^ OF THE ©9DE OF CIVIL r1

¶10

¶11

!t€

¶12

B.IQK COURT CT- CaiHATTISGARH

¶13

Sizigie Bendh: Honrble Mr. Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶14

Second ARpeal No.461 of 2004

¶15

APPELIANT Smt< Bholi Bai, widow of late Hira Ram

¶16

Vs.

¶17

RESPONDENTS Basant & others<

¶18

SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CGD& OF CIVIL EROCEDURE, 1908

¶19

Present: Shri J.S. Bariak,' counsel for the appellant. Shri Mohd. Tareq Haider, counsel for respondents No» 1 & 2. Shri AJchil Agrawal, PL for the State/respondent No< 3,

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

^~-.

¶22

(Passed on 03.02.2014)

¶23

(1) Heard on admisslon. For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status before the trial Court. (2) This is plaintiff's Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for ^the short MV Act/) against the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2004 passed by District Judge^ Sarguja^ Ambikapr in Civil Appeal No. 17-A/2003, affirming the j udgment and decree dated 2Q.2.2003 passed by Additional Civil Judge^ Class I, Jashpurnagar in Civil Suit No. 17-A/2003 dismissing the plaintiffs suit.

¶24

(3? Plaintiff - Smt. Bholi Bai filed.a civil suit seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 12<11.1997 executed by defendant No, 1 - Basant in favour for defendant No. 2- Ahlad Beck is null and void and she is entitled for permanent injunction.

¶25

¶26

(4) The trial - Court^ recorded a finding that plaintiff is not Gharjlhan daughter of Ganga Ram as it has not been proved that Ganga Ram had no son and she was accepted as Gharjihan daughter by Shri Ganga Ram* The trial Court further recorded a finding that such a custom has not been pleaded and established by the plaintiff; it also recorded a finding that sale deed made by defendant No.l in favour of defendant No* 1 is a valid sale-deed.

¶27

¶28

(5) The plaintiff preferred.first appeal there-against. The first appellate court, after appreciating and reappreciating the entire evidence adduced in the case, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial courty leading to filing of this Second Appeal under Secti0xri 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (6) Shri J.S< Bariak^ learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below are and the same raises a substantial perverse question of law for determination in this appeal^

¶29

¶30

(7) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records of both the courts below including judgment and decree impugned,

¶31

¶32

(8) Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding that it has not been proved and established by plaintiffBholi Bai that she was Gharjlhan daughter of his father Gangaram and she was accepted as Gharjihan daughter by Shri Ganga Ram, The aforesaid findings recorded by both the courts below are findlng of fact based on material available on record and I do not find it either or perverse contrary to record and no question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

¶33

(9) Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwaw^fch Agrrawal, S/0 Slfcazam Agrrawal Vs» Sairla yi^jhwausafch -^grxairal has held that High Court should not disturb the concurrent finding of fact, unless finding recorded are perverse being based on no evidence. Para-36^ 37 of report as under:-

¶34

V36. In Major Slngh Vs. Rattan Singh2 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 consider whether the reasons given^bythe courts below are susfcainable in law while hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶35

1 (2012)78cc 288 2 (1997) 3 SCC 546: AIR 1997 SC 1906

¶36

¶37

••••/,y^

¶38

37» In Vidl-iyadhan Vs. Mani^crao3 it has been ruled that the High Court in a second appeal should not disturb the conourrent 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 could have person 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 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This view of ours has been fortified by the decisions of this Court in Abdul Rahe^m V. Karnaraka Electncity Board^^

¶39

(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 t> law is involved in this appeal, thus appeal deserves to and accordingly dismissed at admission stage itself. No order as to cost*

¶40

Sd/SanjayK.Agrawal Judge

¶41

3 (1999)35cc 573 4 (2007) 14 SCC 138: AJR 2008 SC 956

Smt.Bholi Bai v. Basant and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Bholi Bai v. Basant 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

Dholi Bai and Ors. Vs Premlal and Ors.

Dhanajiram and Ors. Vs Praveen Kumar and Ors.

Shyamlal and Anr. Vs Dulorin Bai and Ors.

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.