In this Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court observed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding land identity were not perverse and based on evidence. The court held no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.
Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage. No order as to cost.
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.
Vy/x’r/
i n mm CFOOOOO‘I72s)? i
IN THE HIGH COD \ OF JUDICA§E AT JAgaPUR; F515: \6 n \ 6* Second Appeal No . $31] /2ooo.
SECOHD AP?EAL U/S. 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
m9, APPELLANT _ PLAIN? IFF. Ram Pyare S/o. Gurudayal, aged about 30 years, Occupation agriculture, R;é'a£. Village— Mendra PS- Pundi TehsilManendragarh DistrictSarguja, %MW A now Korea, HP. . FM(1;.. MYE¢ ' Lys‘vi ‘—m~.m.m.-Ver3uS-' mo.Ap' RE SPONDENTS . *1 . Mohan Singh S/o. shiv Mangal, :)EFEI\TDANTS . $ingh Gond, aged abaut 59 years, f§ W32“ OccupationAgricuiture, 2. Subran $/o. Mohan Singh, aged about 34 years, Occupation— agriculture.
AP?EAL VALIIEE AS PER VALUATKDE‘? IN THE CGURT3 BELWO'D AN COURT ‘FEE‘S §A£19' 'R x g 4.6 4- AS IE? THE LLATE COURT}
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Second Appeal No.554 of 2000
APPELLANT Ram Pyare, S/o. Gurudayal Plaintiff
Vs. RESPONDENTS Subran & others. Defendants
SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Present: Shri A.K. Prasad, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 3u ORAL ORDER ( Passed on 06.02.2014) (l) Heard on admission. For sake of convenience, the parties wo'uld be referred hereinafter as per their status before the trial Court. /(2) This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal filed under Section IOO of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the CPC’) against the judgment and decree dated 29.l.2000 passed by Additional D istrict Judge, Manendragarh, Korea in Civil Appeal No. l1—A/l997, affirming the judgment and decree dated 25.4.l997 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Manendragarh in Civil Suit No. l3—A/93, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.
(3) Facts ncssaryee f or disposal of this appela are that: Pliif—anf Ramyarep fi led a sUit f or dearationcl that scduledhe suit land bearing Khasr a No. 52/8, area 1 .05 hectare situteda at veillag Mendra, Partwai Halka a No.l2v be decalred a s a part of Khasra‘ No. lO4 adn i pl aintiff i s also entitled for mesne profi t adn i plOosseSSD. (4) The trial Court, b y its jdeugmnt & decree dedat ‘ 25.4.l997 has held tha t ptiflainf has , purchased teh scheduled suit land bringea Khasra No.52/,8 area l.056 iheectars by registered sal e deed ddate 15.3.199 0 but 1the pntlaiiff has faidle to estalishb that the sdai i Khsraa number has b een given as a new Kharas NotlO4. T he trila C ourt futhrer recorded a findgin that teh ‘ defndantse are in possessino o f the sui t ldan for the K y last 30—35 years. ()5T he plaiiffnt preferedr first appeal tereagaint.hs Th e first appllatee court, a fter re— appeciatingr the entire encvidee adduced in the case, af firmed the judgmnte and deceer passed by the trial court, leading to fiingl of this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (6) Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below that the plaintiff has failed to establish that land purchased
2" v
by him i.e. Khasra No.52/8, are-a 1.05 hectare, of which new Khasra No. 104 is perverse asynirt has been duly established by the p1ain‘tiff. (7) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the judgment & decree impugned. (8): Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that land bearing Khasra No.52/8, area 1.05, which is purchased/by the plaintiff and the land bearing Khasra No.3l04 is the same. The first appellate court has recorded a finding that the land bearing Khasra No. 104 hasjnot been purchased by the plaintiff. Thus, the said findings recorded by both the courts below are finding i of :fact based on material available on record and I do / ,35 noti find it .either perverse or contrary to record and ‘f’ho :question of law much less substantial question o f law is involved in this appeal. (9) Recently, the} Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath Agrawal, S/O Sitaram Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawall has held that High Court should not disturb the'concurrent finding of fact, unless findin g recordedlare’perverse being based on no evidence. Para— 36, 37 of report as under:-
"36. .In Major Singh Vs. Rattan Singh2 it has been observed that when the courts below had rejected and disbelieved the
1 1 (2012)‘7scc288 2 (1997)3SCC546:AIR 1997 SC 1906 s
evidence on unacceptable grounds, it is the duty of the High‘Court to consider whether the reasons ginen by the courts below are“ sustainable in law while hearing an appeal under Section IOO of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3 7. In Vidhyadhan Vs. Manikrao3 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 recoreded by the Courts below are pervere 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 decions of this Court in Abdul Raheem V. Karnaraka Electricity Board4.”
(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 is involved in this appeal, thus appeal deserves to and accordingly dismissed at admission stage itself. No order as to cost.
Sd/-
Sanj ay K. Agrawal
i,“
1
3 4(1999)3scc573 (2007)14scc138;AIR2008sc956 I,” /,
u:W
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below regarding the identity of specific land parcels are perverse or contrary to evidence.
Whether a substantial question of law is involved under Section 100 of the CPC in a Second Appeal.
Whether the High Court should disturb concurrent findings of fact where they are based on evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vishwanath Agrawal, S/O Sitaram Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath AgrawalReferred¶9
(2012) 7 SCC 288 · Who else cites this
Major Singh Vs. Rattan SinghReferred¶20
Major Singh Vs. Rattan Singh (1997) 3 SCC 546 · Who else cites this
Vidhyadhan Vs. ManikraoReferred¶22
Vidhyadhan Vs. Manikrao
Abdul Raheem V. Karnaraka Electricity BoardReferred¶22
Abdul Raheem V. Karnaraka Electricity Board
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Pyare
Subran
The State of M.P.
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
