The Hon'ble High Court dismissed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC as devoid of merits, holding that the first appellate Court's finding on title was based on evidence and was neither perverse nor contrary to the record.
Second appeal dismissed in limine without notice to the other side.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 335 of 2008
Fagnuram (died) through Lrs.(I) Narbadiya Bai W/o Dukalu Ram, Aged 38 years,
R/o Village Neorgaon Kala, Tahsil Bodla, District
Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
(ii) Rajia Bai W/o Dalichand, Aged 30 years, R/o
Village Motiyari, Tahsil Kawardha, District
Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
(iii) Udasiya Bai W/o Late Fagnuram, Aged 62
years.
(iv) Narayan S/o Late Fagnuram, Aged 36 years.
(v) Rajju S/o Late Fagnuram, Aged 34 years.
(vi) Rajelal S/o Late Fagnuram, Aged 23 years.
Lrs. No. (iii) to (vi) are R/o Village Bhalpheri,
TahsilKawardha,DistrictKabirdham,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
Nankuram, Son of Late Jhari Marar, Aged about 62 years, Village Bhalpahri, Police Station Bodla, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents
For Appellants :Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate
For State:Mr. Anshuman Rabra, Panel Lawyer
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board
18/11/2019
Heard on admission and formulation of substantialquestion of law in this second appeal preferred
by the appellants/defendants under Section 100 of
the CPC against the judgment and decree of the
first appellate Court reversing the judgment and
decree of the trial Court and decreeing the suit
of the plaintiff with respect to 0.03 acre of
land in favour of the plaintiff.
Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in reversing the finding of the trial Court with respect to the title of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff has title over the suit land ignoring other legally admissible evidence available on record that prove that plaintiff is not the title-holder of the suit land, therefore, no decree could have been passed in his favour. Moreover, the suit was also not properly valued with regard to possession. As such, the finding recorded by the first appellate Court, being perverse, gives rise to substantial question of law for determination in this second appeal.3
Plaintiff filed a civil suit that he is the title-holder of the suit land bearing khasra No. 297/3 admeasuring 0.30 acre out of which 0.03 acre has been encroached upon by the defendants and he has been dispossessed unauthorizedly, therefore, he is entitled for decree of declaration of title over the entire 0.30 acre of suit land and decree for possession over 0.03 acre of suit land.Learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the suit land but the first appellate Court, on the basis of the oral and documetary evidence on record, particularly Exhibit P/3 and P/4 came to the conclusion that suit land is recorded in the name of plaintiff and it has not been controverted by the defendants and thus, reached to the conclusion that plaintiff is title-holder of the suit land and is entitled for decree of possession over the suit land.The finding recorded by the first appellate Court that plaintiff is the title-holder of the suit land bearing khasra No. 297/3 area 0.03 acre is a finding of fact based on evidence available onrecord particularly, Exhibits P/3 and P/4 filed
and proved by the plaintiff. As such, the
aforesaid finding recorded by the first appellate
Court is neither perverse nor contrary to record.
Likewise, the first appellate Court has also
recorded a finding with regard to the valuation
of the suit in paragraph 16 of its judgment which
is a finding of fact based on evidence available
on record.
The second appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. Nocost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Harneet
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of the first appellate Court regarding the plaintiff's title is perverse or contrary to evidence warranting intervention under Section 100 CPC.
Whether the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff violates the principle that second appeals are not for rehearing facts.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Fagnuram (died) through Lrs. [Narbadiya Bai, Rajia Bai, Udasiya Bai, Narayan, Rajju, Rajelal]
Nankuram
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court