Devchandraji Patidar and Another vs Premchandra Patidar and Another

Hon''ble Shri N.K. Mody, J.—Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08/02/10 passed by IV ADJ, Ratlam in Civil Appeal No. 16-A/09, whereby judgment dated 15/09/09 passed by II Civil Judge, Class-I, Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 15-A/08, whereby suit filed by the appellants was dismissed, was maintained, present appeal has been filed.

Short facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit before the learned trial Court alleging that the appellant No. 1 is deaf and dumb and appellant No. 2 is the wife of appellant No. 1. It was alleged that Bhagirath was the father of appellant No. 1. It was alleged that the house bearing No. 505 is situated at village Dhamnod, which was belonging to Bhagirath, in which appellants are residing with their family. It was alleged that Bhagirath in his life time provided shelter to Modibai his sister in a part of the house. It was alleged that Bhagirath died before 9 years and Modibai has also died before one year. It was alleged that Modibai was having no right title or interest in the suit property, except that she was living with the permission of Bhagirath father of appellant No. 1. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 is claiming rights over the suit property. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 is the son of Modibai and is trying to sell the property to respondent No. 2. It was prayed that it be declared that the appellants are owner of the suit property and respondents be restrained not to interfere into the possession of the appellants and respondent No. 1 be directed not to alienate the suit property. The suit was contested by the respondent No. 1 by filing written statement, wherein all the plaint allegations were denied. It was denied that the mother of respondent No. 1 was provided shelter in the house No. 505. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 is residing in the house No. 504 which is adjoining to the house No. 505. It was alleged that the respondent No. 1 has also sold half of the property. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit, against which an appeal was filed, which was also dismissed, hence this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued at length and submit that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that inspite of the fact that it was found that the appellants were in possession, learned Courts below committed error in not granting decree of injunction. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in holding that the appellants have failed to prove their title over the suit property. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.

After hearing the counsel for the appellants at length this Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are based on due appreciation of evidence and are concurrent in nature, which requires no interference. Since no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, hence appeal filed by the appellants has no merits and the same stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.