Dismissed

Gorelal Tiwari and Others v. Mohanlal Tiwari and Another

Chhattisgarh HC19 Aug 2016SA/74/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a second appeal in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by lower courts confirming that partition had already occurred were neither perverse nor contrary to the record and were based on available evidence.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed at the motion stage as no substantial question of law is involved.

Gorelal Tiwari and Others Vs Mohanlal Tiwari and… — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

SA No. 74 of 2008

¶4

Gorelal Tiwari, S/o Gokul Prasad, Aged about 49 years,

¶5

Sundarlal Tiwari, S/o Shri Gokul Prasad, Aged about 43 years, Both are R/o Kasdol, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

Smt. Narmada Bai Wd/o Gokul Prasad, Aged about 65 years (since died) : Through Her Legal Representative - Daughter Smt. Ramkali Bai, W/o Bajrang Prasad Dubey, Aged about 48 years, R/o Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

---- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mohanlal Tiwari, S/o Gokul Prasad, Aged about 51 years, R/o Village Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Appellants : Shri Manoj Paranjpe & Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocates For the State : Ms. K. Tripti, Rao, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

19/08/2016

¶16

Heard.

¶17

The plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and was partly decreed by the trial Court, against which defendants preferred an appeal in which they were unsuccessful against which the Second Appeal is preferred.

¶18

Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction

¶19

S.A. No. 74 of 2008

¶20

¶21

granted by both the Courts below by recording a perverse finding and gives rise to substantial question of law.

¶22

The findings recorded by both the Courts below holding that the partition has already been taken place and the plaintiff entitled for declaration of title and permanent injunction is a finding of fact based on material available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to the record, I do not find any substantial question of law for admission of this appeal.

¶23

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath Agrawal, S/o Sitaram Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal¹ , has held that High Court should not disturb the concurrent finding of fact, unless finding recorded is perverse being based on no evidence. Paras-36 & 37 of report as under:-

¶24

“36. In Major Singh 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 by the Courts below are sustainable in law while hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶25

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

¶26

1 (2012) 7 SCC 288

¶27

2 (1997) 3 SCC 546 : AIR 1997 SC 1906

¶28

3 (1999) 3 SCC 573

¶29

S.A. No. 74 of 2008

¶30

¶31

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 jurisdictions under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This view of ours has been fortified by the decisions of this Court in Abdul Raheem V. Karnataka Electricity Board⁴ .

¶32

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 available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal.

¶33

Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage.

¶34

( Sanjay K. Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶35

Kvr

¶36

4 (2007) 14 SCC 138: AIR 2008 SC 956

Gorelal Tiwari and Others v. Mohanlal Tiwari and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorelal Tiwari and Others v. Mohanlal Tiwari and Another

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

Rameshwari Bai and Another Vs Smt.Gayatri Bai and Another

Anil Kumar Dubey Vs Smt.Shanti Tripathi and Another

Bhikham and Others Vs Bhanu Pratap Singh and Others

Siyaram Vs Vishnu Prasad and Others

Badruddin and Others Vs Jaitun Bibi and Others

Khorbahar and 3 Others Vs Ram Kunwar and 1 Other