Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tikaram vs Harishankar on 26 December, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63867
1 SA-2843-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 26th OF DECEMBER, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 2843 of 2023
TIKARAM
Versus
HARISHANKAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Yadav - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Shyam Yadav - Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 8.
Shri Dinesh Patel - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
The appeal was heard on admission and reserved for orders on
12/11/2024.
2. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been
preferred by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment
and decree dated 22/09/2023 passed by learned First District Judge,
Gadarwara District Narsinghpur (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal
No.13/2019 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30/10/2018
passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur (MP)
in Regular Civil Suit No.26-A/2016 whereby the learned First Appellate
Court allowed the suit of the plaintiff which was dismissed by the trial
Court on misjoinder of parties and on other grounds.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 26-12-2024
19:41:15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63867
2 SA-2843-2023
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that
plaintiff has lost in the trial Court but the First Appellate Court decreed
the suit of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that findings of the learned
First Appellate Court in respect of share of 1/9 th to each of respondents
No. 1 to 8 is contrary to Hindu Succession Law. It is further submitted
that respondents No. 1 to 8 are real brothers and sisters. Prior to filing of
the suit, some land was sold by the plaintiff Ramsingh S/o Balchand
Lodhi, therefore that should have been taken into consideration and suit
be dismissed by the appellate court.
4. Considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties
on admission, perused the record and judgments of both the Courts.
5. Learned Civil Judge Class-I Gadarwara District Narsinghpur
in Civil Suit No.26-A/2016 (Harishankar and others vs. Ramsingh and
others) vide judgment and decree dated 30/10/2018 dismissed the suit of
the plaintiffs for the suit land as mentioned in Para-1 of the judgment
situated in Gram Sujwara Tehsil Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur for
declaration of title and to declare the mutation entries and sale deed dated
04/12/2015 as null and void along with permanent injunction. It was also
held by the trial Court that there is misjoinder of parties. The learned
First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.13/2019 vide judgment
and decree dated 22/09/2023 held that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/9th
share each and sale deed dated 04/12/2015 is null and void against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 26-12-2024
19:41:15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63867
3 SA-2843-2023
interest of the plaintiff as sale deed was done by defendant no.1
Ramsingh who is the father of plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2.
6. On perusal of the record it is seen that suit property came into
the possession and ownership of defendant No.1 Ramsingh from his wife
meaning thereby it was not self-earned property from the side of father
Ramsingh but he got the suit property from his wife and as per Section
15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on the death of a female on the
immovable property which she has inherited from her father then her
husband in this case Ramsingh and all daughters and sons would be
entitled, therefore including eight children and Ramsingh (the 9th
person), share of each person would be 1/9th. Hence, the judgment
passed by the trial Court is correct as decreed, therefore, sale of the suit
property beyond the share of Ramsingh was legally not valid as he had
already earlier sold his share by Ex.D/1 dated 16/05/1996,
7. Another ground which was taken by the defendant in the trial
Court is that earlier some property was sold by the Ramsingh by Ex.D/1
to Shivprasad on 16/05/1996, but that sale deed is not challenged in the
suit. On consideration it is seen that if previous sale deed (Ex.D/1) in
favour of Shivprasad Lodhi was not challenged but then that would not
amount to misjoinder of parties as Ramsingh already sold his share to
Shivprasad in the year 1996. Plaintiffs are challenging the other sale deed
dated 04/12/2015 and not challenged the other sale deed (Ex.D/1) then
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 26-12-2024
19:41:15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63867
4 SA-2843-2023
that it would not amount to misjoinder as correctly held by learned First
Appellate Court in Paras- 34 & 37 of impugned judgment. Even
otherwise not challenging the earlier sale deed (Ex.D/1) dated
16/05/1996 in favour of Shivshankar would not arise any substantial
question of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly,
withdrawal of plaintiff No.3 Dinesh Kumar in the suit on the basis of
compromise in favour of defendant No.2 Tikaram would also not defeat
the suit because that is a separate transfer between appellant Dinesh
(plaintiff No.3) of his share to defendant No.2 Tikaram and it would be
operable only as per the Registration Act between the parties i.e. Dinesh
and Tikaram.
8. After considering the arguments and perusing the record and
all the facts as mentioned above, it is seen that no interference can be
made in the judgment decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by learned
appellate Court as it is seen that all facts, evidence and all legal aspects
have been considered by the learned first appellate Court.
9. As all facts have been considered and no ground or
substantial question of law exists on which this second appeal can be
admitted.
10. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with
the findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
well defined by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 26-12-2024
19:41:15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:63867
5 SA-2843-2023
cannot interfere with the finding of fact until or unless the same is
perverse or contrary to material on record. [See: Narayan Rajendran and
Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat
Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 189, Union of India
v. Ibrahim Uddin and Antoher, (2012) 8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy
v. Ramappa, (2011) 1 SCC 158 Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath
Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar
Rao Babu Rao Bhilare, (2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and
Others v. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264]. The findings of fact
and law recorded by the First Appellate Court are based on meticulous
appreciation of evidence on record which by no stretch of imagination
can be said either to be perverse or based on no evidence.
11. As no substantial question of law arise in this appeal, hence, it
is dismissed at admission stage itself.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
V. JUDGE
RM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 26-12-2024
19:41:15