Basant Lal vs Smt. Chandra Kali

Alok Aradhe, J

Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal is by the plaintiffs whose suit has been partly decreed by both the courts.

Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs filed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that defendant No. 1 exchanged the lands with the plaintiffs and accordingly, two registered documents dated 23.9.1972 (Exhibits-P-1 & P-2) were executed. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 1 got executed exchange deeds in favour of minor son and also executed exchange deed in favour of the plaintiffs. In both the exchange deeds the sale consideration was mentioned as Rs. 3,000/-. It was also pleaded that parties were in separate possession as per the exchange deeds. However, the plaintiffs'' names were not mutated in the revenue records due to objection raised by the defendant No. 1 and is brothers. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and in the alternative the relief was claimed that in case the exchange deeds are not found to be proved, the possession of the land given in exchange to defendant No. 1 be delivered.

The defendant No. 1 filed written statement in which, inter alia, it was pleaded that defendant No. 2 was a minor and his guardian, namely, defendant No. 1 purchased the land from the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 sold the land to the plaintiffs. The documents in question, namely, Exhibits-P-1 & P-2 are, in fact, the sale deeds which are duly registered and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. The defendant No. 2 also supported the stand taken by defendant No. 1 in the written statement.

The trial Court partly decreed the suit and held that plaintiffs have one-fifth share in the suit property. The aforesaid decree has been affirmed in appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence on record has not been appreciated by the courts below in proper perspective which has resulted in erroneous finding and consequent decree.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. The courts below by relying on the testimony to the witness of the document in question, namely, Dharamraj has held that the documents, namely, Exhibits-P-1 & P-2 are, in fact, the exchange deeds and not sale deeds. It was further held that the defendants did not lead any evidence to show that the documents in question are sale deeds and no sale consideration was paid. It was further held that 5 legal representatives out of 7 legal representatives of Late Hari Vishnu Ram had executed the exchange deeds in favour of the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to 5/7th share in the suit land. The aforesaid concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to dislodge the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below.

The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact u/s 100 of CPC is limited to the case where the finding is either perverse or based on no evidence. This Court cannot interfere with the concurrent finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material on record. [See: Narayanan Rajendran and Another Vs. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, , Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 189 and D.R. Rathna Murthy Vs. Ramappa, and Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, , Union of India (UOI) Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, , Vanchalabai Raghunath Ithape (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Shankarrao Baburao Bhilare (D) by L.Rs. and Others, ].

For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.