Dismissed

Phekanbai v. Rewatibai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Apr 2014SA/943/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the appellant's second appeal against a decree dismissing her title and possession suit. The Court held that the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the non-ancestral nature of the property were based on evidence and were not perverse.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; no fault found with judgment and decree of courts below.

Phekanbai Vs Rewatibai and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

lN THE. HIGH CDURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR, IVE-Po “ sECOND APPEAL No.^5V3 OF 2090

¶3

I; y1 4 *

¶4

APPEAL^UNDERSECTION IQQ OF CODE OF ’CXVIL PEQCEEJRE APPELLANT :- Smt. Phekan Bai (Plaintiff) W/o Nemichand Sinha, : a edabout³³ years, c Village: Pauwara, 'i Post Office Purai, Tahsil and District Durg (NP) at preSent R/o Central Avenue Road, ' Block No.8, Quarter No.1, $ec‘tor-2 Bhilai, District Durg (MP)^. VERSUS REPESSONDNT :- l. Rewati Eai Wd/o Gaj adhar Sinha, aged about⁴⁴ years, Occupation Agriculture R/o village : Pauwar'a, Post Office: Purai, Tahsil and District Durg (MP) a 2.‘ Smt. Tar’aBai WMO Jethu Kalar, a‘ ed about 55 years, o Tarra Gha‘t , Tahsil p‘atan , District Durg (MP) o 3. State of Madhya Pr’adesh Through : Collector Burg (MP). Being aggrieved with theJudgment and Decree Dated/'24.2.2000 passed by Shri A.K. Chaturvedi, Vhh Additional Dis riot Judge, Durg(M.P) in civil Appeal No.3l-A/9 between Smt. Phekan Bai and VS. Rewati Bai and 2 others arising out of Judgment and Decree Dated/— 9.8.96 passed^by VIII th Civil'Judge Class. il, Durgv QM.P.)";;¢‘1 in Civil SuitVNo. 504/93 between Smt. Phekan Bai. Vs.

¶5

snwao‘rfar'an‘ ammm
1	S.B: Hon'ble Shrj 03/04/2014	Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
	Mr. H.B. Ag	rawal,‘ Senior Advocate with
	Ms . Preeti Y	Advocate for the adav,
	appellant/plainti Heard on adm	ff. ission.
	This is plai	utiff’s second appeal against
	the impugned j	udgment and decree dated
	24/02/2000 pass	ed by Fifth Additional
	District Judge,	Durg in Civil Appeal No. 3l—
	A/l996, affirmin	g the judgment and decree
wx A	dated 09/08/l996	passed by 8th Civil Judge,
	Class—II, Durg i	n Civil Suit No. 50—A/l993,
	dismissing the pl	aintiff’s suit.
	Plaintiff—Smt	. Phekan Bai filed a suit
	for declaration	of title and recovery of
	possession. The	:rial Court, by its judgment
		i-.‘lr. ‘A M_A

‘mam,m,

59M 5%~M/⁹³

E120

WW (W)

mwm‘	z"	WW	§1§€H éa‘afman	§V§R éw
and decre	e date	i 09/08	/1996,	dismissed	the
suit hold	ing th	at the	plaint	iff failed	to
establish	that	the	suit	property	was
inherited	by he	r grand	father—	as Ramnath,	an
ancestral	proper	ty, th	erefore,	plaintiff	is
not entit	led to	succe	ed the	suit prope	rty
under Sec	tion 8	of the	Hindu S	uccession A	ct.
The said	findim	g has	been af	firmed by	the
First Appe	llate C	iourt.
The f	inding	recorde	d by tw	o Courts be	low
.that plai	ntiff l	1as fai	led to	establish	the
nature of	the p	roperty	to anc	estral in	the
hands of	his gr	and fat	her is	concurrent	as
well record. as	based	on e	vidence	available	on

¶13

g7%7 W m J/r/‘a $FL 20

¶14

W m (W)

¶15

mew-m I	$W	h@amm$aa#r$mw irdhnadw
Recently, t	he Sup	rame Court in the
of Vishwanath Ag	rawal,	Son of Sitaram Ag	rawal
Vs. Sarla Vishw	‘m1ath	Agrawal, (2012)	7 SCC
288, has held	ithat	High Court shoul	d not
disturb the cc	ncurre	nt finding of
unless finding	record	ed are perverse	being
based (n1 no evi as under:—	jence.	Para—36, 37 of r	eport
“36. In w	ajor	Singh v. Rattan
Singh, (19 been obser below had	7) 3 ed tha ejecte	SCC 546, it has t when the courts d and disbelieved
‘the evid	nce	on unacceptable
grounds, '	is t	the duty of the
High Court	to con	sider whether the
reasons gi	en by	the courts belmN
are susta hearing	nable appe	in law while al under Section

¶16

.g\av v,\ XI-HC—.78

¶17

3:2.

¶18

snwanw ammm	V mmm	Wm§ WTFaT§R amifanm
	IOO of	the Code of Civil
	Procedure.
v	37 . In Vi	dhyadhan v . Manikrao ,
	(1999) 3	SCC 573, it has been
	ruled tha	t the High Court in a
	second ap	peal should not disturb
	the concu	rrent findings of fact
	unless it	is shown that the
	findings	recoreded by the Courts
	below are	pervere being based on
	no evidenc	e or that on the
	evidence	on record no reasonable
	person co	uld have come to that
	conclusion	. We may note here that
	solely be	cause another view is
	possible c	n the basis of the
	evidence,	the High Court would not
	be entitle	d to exercise ' the
	jurisdicti	an under Section IOO of
	the Code	cf Civil Procedure. This.
	view of ou	rs has been fortified by

XI~HC—"78

mw,m‘,m

W m^f/Wfgw wt 20

mm (W)

WWWW H211 m	WWW _ g”.—	Wmuth'awa‘aw amifanm
	the decisi	on of this Court in
	Abdul Ra	heem V. Karnaraka
	Electricit 138.”	y Board, (2007) 14 SCC
	Keeping in	View, the ratio of law laid
	down by the Sup	^>reme Court in the aforesaid
	case, the concur	rent finding of fact recorded
	by both the	l Courts below is based on
	evidence, there	is no perversity and no
	substantial (yx&	tion of law is involved in
	this appeal.
	’ In View of e	ibove, I do not find any fault
	with the judgme	ant and decree of both the
	Courts below . T and is according stage itself. No	he second appeal lack; merit ly dismissed at the admission order as to cost(s).
Tiwari		Sd/- Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge

Phekanbai v. Rewatibai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phekanbai v. Rewatibai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Urmila Devi and Another Vs Smt.Savitri

Umed Ram Sahu Vs Gouri Shankardeadth.Lr'S Manoj and Ors.

Ramesh Chandra Shrivastava and Ors. Vs Smt. Kumbati and Ors.

Bhugde Kenwat Vs Nanki Kenwat and Others

Bhagwat and Anr. Vs Bhanwar and Ors.

Chowkilal Sahu Vs Vijay Lal and Ors.