Dismissed

Bhugde Kenwat v. Nanki Kenwat and Others

Chhattisgarh HC2 Apr 2014SA/98/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Second Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against a concurrent finding of fact that his adoption was not proved and an execution of a will in favour of the defendant was established. The court held the findings were based on evidence, were not perverse, and the appeal lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed; the judgment and decree of both the trial court and the first appellate court were affirmed.

Bhugde Kenwat Vs Nanki Kenwat and Others — Succession and Inheritance | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

(

¶2

...... ..^--.^ -^-i

¶3

IN TH3 HICT-I COURT OP CHHATTI SGASI-I JUDIGATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.)

¶4

SSCON3D APPEAL N0 7|? /2003

¶5

^^gSLLMT. ^-Augde Kenwat S/o ^ri ~ Cglaintiff) 3iiv prasad Kenwat » aged about62 years Occupation- Agriculturist/ K/b Village- Deori telisil - Distrist- Raigarh<. (C»G«)

¶6

V3RSU3

¶7

RESPONDSNTS J^efendents)

¶8

^•"10 ETanki Kenwat

¶9

^ Q/o airi- airaj Kenwat aged about 62 years

¶10

.»•• ,.-2) uahav Kenwat S/o Ari Nanki Kenwat ^••'@k aged about 42 years ^ Both B/o ^.e^ .^T^ Village-Deori, Teh.&Dist. Raigaj 3) sbate Of Chhattisgarh ,...>^<' ^ ^""^y ^' Ihrough ODllector Raigarh. ^' (C.G<)

¶11

SSCONED APP3XL UND3R SSCTIQN 100 QF TH3 CODE OF CIVIL PROOSDURE.

¶12

..__^.-.-

¶13

lfc

¶14

^E^T ^lt^l^'q, ^Tfl^l^, fs|01-M^<

¶15

—78

¶16

^ ^l^dl shNlch •••--•-•••••••---••••—• • ••• 20

¶17

3^?r xnra? ('^f^o^T)

¶18

3T^"^T ?FT"f^rNr TI^TT 3^T^T $n^i<=t)	'^TTW^Tf^T ^n^T	^i^(<!i<	flTi ^i^<^i ^f Fs^ ^R ^'stRPT ^TT^T	K^K
	S.B: Hon*ble Shril 02/04/2014	Justic	e San-iay K	. Acrrawal
	Mr. R.S.	Patel,	Advocate	for the
	appellant/plainti]	ff.
	Mr. Amit	3harma,	Advocate	for the
	respondent/defend]	ant No.	2.
	Mr. Sanjee^	Agraw	al, P.L.	for the
	State/respondent	No. 3.
	Heard on adm:	.ssion.
	This is plail	itiffs'	second appe	al against
	the 1 impugned j		udgment	and dec
	13/11/2002 pas^	ed by	. Firsf	Additional
	District Judge,	Raigarh	in Civil	Appeal No.
t,,	47-A/2001, affiril	ting the	judgment	and decree
	dated 20/04/2001	passed	by First Ci	vil Judge,
	Class-II, Raigarl'1	in Civ	il Suit No.	9-A/2000,
	dismissing the pl]	aintiff'	s suit.

¶19

—78

¶20

3^T ^TPTT^T, ^T-fiy'Ko, Rl01'y'j,<

¶21

^Wvi\ sbNlch

¶22

•^ 20

¶23

	3TT^T 1iT5W ( 4c<Ilc<	<^)
3^^ ^>T f<<li<=b ^?H^?T $b^J<=h	^<1TW^tf^ 37T^T -^'		^i^(<n^11	TITR^if '^T.fiT^t' i7 37RTR 3TT^T	tf^H^R
	Plaintiff-Bhit	gde	Kenw	at filed	a s	uit	for
	partition and pos		sess	ion.	The tria	l Co	urt,
	its judgment an(	i de	cree	dated	20/0	4/2	001,
	dismissed the sui		t, w	hich	was affi	rmed	by
	First Appellate C	^urt.
	The trial C	)urt	has	clearly	rec	orde	d a
	finding that the	Iplai	ntiff	is not	adop	ted	son
	of Parasram and	^lso	reco	rded a	findi	ng	that
	Para^sram has exed	uted	a w	ill in f	avour	of	the
	defendant No. 2 o	n 02	/09/1	996 (Exh	ibit	D-1	).
	The concurre		nt	findi	ng recor	ded	by
	Trial Court hol		iing	tha	t adopt	ion	of
	plaintiff by Par	sram	is	not prov	ed,	whe	reas
	execution of will	in	favo	ur of de	fend	ant	No.
	2 is established,]	is	a fi	nding on	fac	t b	ased
	on evidence. T		-ieF	irs	t Appel	late	C

¶24

fe.^^'^'~^_^ B %||P[^I-|C-78 ^. ^v/

¶25

3^'-^ i^i^^, ^ITO'M'KO, fsi^i'y^

¶26

"^ae,^'

¶27

^l^dl 5h41<*)

¶28

..s.^..:.^:..^/.^•^ 20

¶29

	3:ni??T'<T5R7 ( 4c<f<lc<<i	?T)
-STI^^T ^'3FT^i<=b ?[^T 3T^T?FRW	^RTTW^rf^T CT^T	^h\|^(<ri^ni 1RTC^f ^F.f^^t''(f3R$R ^T'SfRpT 3ff^T
	affirmed the s		ame
	finding. The sco	^>	^[pe of
	the concurrent fi		nding
	Recently, th	<	e Sup
	of Vishwanath Ag4	awal,	Son of Sitaram Agrawal
	Vs. Sarla Vishw4	nath	Agrawal/ (2012) 7 SCC
	288^ has held f	hat	High Court should not
	disturb the cof	icurr	ent finding of fact,
	unless finding	^ecord	ed are perverse being
	based on no evic	lence.	Para-36, 37 of report
^,-	as under:-
	"36. In M	^jor	Singh v. Rattan
	Singh, (19^	7) 3	SCC 546, it has
	been observt	d th	at when thecourts
	below had rt	:ject	ed and disbelieved
	the evide	hce	on unacceptable
	grounds, i'	is	the duty of the

¶30

i; •iXI-HK—78

¶31

3^' -^WW^, ?$T{i^lt<o, fsf>l^^<

¶32

^IHCB1I ^h^l^h

¶33

.L..^..-..-^:...^/^.•^ 20

¶34

3H^?r WSK (^f^^r)

¶35

^rr^T^T ^ich 'd^T 3T?^T ^^Jch	^<TTW^ft<T 37T^?T £/~	'ct)i^{<n<flvi 'RT^ToTt^r.f^stTfsy^n ^ <3tf?R 3TT^?T
	High Court	to consider whether the
	reasons gi^	•en by the courts below
	are sustail	nable in law while
	hearing an
	100 of t
	Procedure.
	37. In Vidj	hyadhan v. Manikrao,
	(1999) 3	^CC 573, it has been
	ruled that	the High Court. in
	second app^	al should not disturb
	the concur	rent findings of fact
	unless it	is shown that the
	findings r	^coreded by the Courts
	below are	pervere being based on
^	no evidenc^	or that on the
	evidence ot	. record no reasonable
	person couj	Ld have come to that
	conclusion.l	We may note here that
	solely becj	lause another view is
	possible oij	the basis of the
	evidence, t

¶36

XI-HC—78

¶37

¶38

TwT^ii^i^^, ^Tfl'y4!^, ist0i<-i^<

¶39

HW<r{\ *N14)

¶40

jr^,^'^/^' ••^20

¶41

	a^ip?r xnra? (4c<flc<<	!^)
3T^"^?FTf^rW TTSTT 37T^?T $t>^i<=h		^l^f^l^ll ^IH^If^fk^\Tf^t^K ^^tRm^TT^T
^
^	be entitled jurisdictio]	to exercise the n under Section 100 of
	the Code o1	Civil Procedure. This
	view of ourl	s has been fortified by
	the decionsl	of this Court in.Abdul
	Raheem V.	Karnaraka Electricity
	Board, (20		07) 14 SCC 138.//
	Keeping in	^iew, the ratio of law	laid
	down; by the Sup;	:eme Court in the afor	esaid
	casei, the concun		ent finding of fact rec
	by :both. the C	lourts below is based	on
	evidence, there	is no perversity an	d no
^	substantial ques-	:ion of law is involve	d in
	this appeal.
	In view of aJ	DOve, .I do not find any	fault
	with the judgme	at and decree of both	the
	Courts below. Tl	^e second appeal lack	merit

¶42

TJGMTI,
a8pnf
IBMejgv^yCefues
-/PS
T^;' ^SOO O^. SG jT3pJ:0 ON -JTOS^T e5pq.s
uo-rssTuipG 9L[q. q.^ pessTuzsTp A ([fiUTpJOOOP ST pUG 1
-^-
I^IK> kDJ^ ^ l^l^ D^jrt- >felt^S ^lh^ia^lie itei^
ItSiJSjl (J^^J jj^ j[^hlk'^tbU>]bl4£ ^ii-y i^ iB^ite

¶43

( tebbtjb^ ) 4»lch [^te

¶44

¶45

'ldi.............^.......................................... OZ ^lhMS Mb,lh ^/^'^^•^'J~ >?>141<oy 'S)|rl4^ 'h-^lh.lh-l^-P

¶46

8Z—OH-IX.,^%;,;i

Bhugde Kenwat v. Nanki Kenwat and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhugde Kenwat v. Nanki Kenwat 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

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.

Bhagwat and Anr. Vs Bhanwar and Ors.

Chowkilal Sahu Vs Vijay Lal and Ors.

Phekanbai Vs Rewatibai and Ors.