Dismissed

Bhanwara Ram v. Satyanarayan

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2024CSA/105/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law is involved. Finding no such question, the Court rejected the second appeal at the admission stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bhanwara Ram Vs Satyanarayan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:3004]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 105/2023

¶4

Bhanwara Ram S/o Shri Gorkha Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Bhudhwaliya Tehsil Rawatsar Distt Hanumangarh

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Satyanarayan S/o Hazariram Parek, R/o Bhudhwaliya Tehsil Rawatsar Distt Hanumangarh

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Shanker Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)	:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Judgment

¶11

DATE OF JUDGMENT 23/01/2024

¶12

The present civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment dated 26.4.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the learned Appellate Court) in Civil Appeal No. 18/2022 whereby the judgment and decree dated 5.5.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court) in Civil Original Suit No. 8/2017 was affirmed.

¶13

The facts in nutshell giving rise to the present second appeal are that a suit for recovery of Rs.1,70,100/- was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent with the averments that the defendantappellant took a loan of Rs.1,05,000/- from the plaintiffrespondent as he had to repay the loan taken from the KrayaVikaraya Sahakari Samiti, Budhawalia and the bank. For this

[2024:RJ-JD:3004]

[CSA-105/2023]

(2 of 6)

purpose, an agreement (Rukka) was executed on 4.6.2014 with a condition that the defendant-appellant shall repay the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff-respondent within four days, but since he did not repay the same, the plaintiff-respondent made a complaint before the Police Station, Thaladka. On 10.6.2014, the defendantappellant was summoned in the Police Station where in the presence of respectable persons of the society, the defendantappellant accepted that he has taken loan from the plaintiffrespondent but could not repay the same and the same was written on an application dated 10.6.2014, which was submitted by the defendant-appellant to the Incharge of the Police Station concerned after appending his thumb impression. It was also stated that the defendant-appellant shall repay the loan amount within 2-4 days and in case of delay, he would pay interest at the rate of 2%. Despite repeated endeavours, the defendantappellant failed to repay the loan amount. The agreement (Rukka) was registered on 29.6.2014. Further, since the defendant-appellant was not repaying the loan, therefore, an FIR No.419/2014 was lodged at Police Station, Rawatsar and the investigating agency after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the defendant-appellant. Thus, the plaintiff-respondent preferred the suit seeking recovery of loan amount alongwith interest.

¶18

Learned Trial Court allowed the suit of the plaintiffrespondent. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Trial court, the appellant preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the

[2024:RJ-JD:3004]

[CSA-105/2023]

(3 of 6)

decision of the learned courts below, the appellant has preferred the present second appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings given by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court are wrong and contrary to the material available on record. It is submitted that no such amount was taken on loan by the appellant and there was no execution of the agreement (Rukka). It is further submitted that the respondent has preferred the suit on the basis of forged and fabricated document/agreement. Further, it is submitted that there was no Panchayat in the Police Station and no such application dated 10.6.2014 was given by the appellant in the police station. The thumb impression of the appellant was taken on blank papers by use of force and with the connivance of the police, the plaintiff-respondent has prepared evidence against the defendant-appellant. It is further submitted that the evidence has not been examined in proper perspective. Thus, it is prayed that present appeal may be allowed and the decisions rendered by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court be quashed and set aside.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the material available on record. 6. Existence of substantial question of law is a sine-qua-non for maintainability of second appeal. At the stage of admission of the present appeal, the question that needs to be determined is that whether a substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal or not.

[2024:RJ-JD:3004]

[CSA-105/2023]

(4 of 6)

While deciding the suit, learned Trial Court framed 5 issues. In favor of plaintiff, PW1-Satyanaran, PW2-Santlal, PW-3 Bhagirath, PW-4 Pradeep Kumar, PW-5 Ram Pratap were examined and 7 exhibits were produced in documentary evidence. In rebuttal, defendants examined DW1- Bhanwarram, DW2-Kalawati, DW-3 Jeetram and DW-4 Om Prakash were examined and 1 document was exhibited in documentary evidence. Learned Trial Court as well as learned First Appellate Court, after examining the evidence available on record, decided all the issues against the appellant-defendant and dismissed the suit and the appeal. It was held by both the Courts that the appellant-defendant failed to prove his case.

¶29

It is a settled law that evidence on record cannot be reappreciated in a second appeal as it can be done in a first appeal. Both the learned Courts have recorded concurrent findings which are based on sound appreciation of evidence. In Surendra Kumar Jaggi v. Ahmed Farooq and Ors . (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 01/2011), decided on 23.08.2012, this Court in para 14 has held that:

¶30

" 14. It is well settled that evidence on record cannot be reappreciated in second appeal under Section 100 CPC like it could be done in first appeal under Section 96 CPC and such second appeal would lie only if substantial question of law, as defined in various case laws, arises in the matter. Nothing of this sort is found in the present case."

¶31

Further, there is no reason to say that the learned Courts, while arriving at their conclusions, have misconstrued the material evidence or have acted in disregard to the established principles of

[2024:RJ-JD:3004]

[CSA-105/2023]

(5 of 6)

law. It is a trite law that normally, in second appeal, concurrent findings of fact are not to be disturbed unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigela Laxmi and Ors. reported

¶36

in AIR 2008 SC 380, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 13 has held that:

¶37

" 13. The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."

¶38

There is nothing on record that suggests that the learned courts below have ignored material evidence or have acted on no evidence or that they have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or that they have wrongly cast the burden of proof.

¶39

Further, in Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwari

¶40

(Dead) by L.Rs. reported in AIR 2001 SC 965, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:

¶41

" 12. The phrase 'substantial question of law', as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying 'question of law', means - of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with - technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the Legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of substantial

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:3004]

[CSA-105/2023]

question of law by suffixing the words 'of general importance' as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta & Anr. Vs. T. Ram Ditta, AIR 1928 Privy Council 172, the phrase 'substantial question of law' as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 of the C.P.C. (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and Their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties. ..."

¶46

Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal.

¶47

Consequently, the present second appeal is rejected at the stage of admission. The judgment dated 26.4.2023 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 18/2022 and judgment and decree dated 5.5.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Original Suit No. 8/2017 are affirmed.

¶48

No order as to costs.

¶49

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶50

53-CPGoyal/-

Bhanwara Ram v. Satyanarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bhanwara Ram v. Satyanarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malle Khan Vs Mohan Singh and Ors.

Pusa Ram Vs Bhanwar Lal

C.T.O., a/E, Bhilwara Vs M/S Madhusudan Industries Ltd.

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs M/S Vishwa Karma Laghu Udyog

Soni Devi Vs Assistant Engineer J.V.V.N. Ltd.

Lrs of Jamunadhar Vs Radheyshyam and Ors.