AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—Heard learned advocate Mr. Kalpesh Gurnam for learned advocate Mr. Ankit Bachani appearing for the Appellants proposing to raise substantial questions of law as follows:
(1) Whether both the lower courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the merits of the case pertaining to the said Act?
(2) Whether both the lower courts have passed the order on the basis of jurisdiction ground that the suit premises belong to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and rehabilitation, Act 1954) ?
(3) Whether both the learned Judges held that the Plaintiffs have no documentary evidences to prove his stand on the possession of the said premises?
(4) Whether both the learned Judges have ignored or overlooked the very fact that the father of the Plaintiffs Mali Khumaji, has taken prior legal permission for the possession of the said premises from the Mamlatdar as well as of the Deputy Officer for the Custodial of Evacuee Property, and also constructed house on the said plot removing hut taking permission from the Municipality dated 20-08-1957?
(5) Whether both the learned Judges have passed the order without considering the factual aspects and not even on merits but on the jurisdiction ground?
However, considering the submissions with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as provided in Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and also the judgment referred to and relied upon by learned advocate reported in 1973 GLHEL 216005 in the case of Mirchumal Samandas And Ors. v. Union of India. However, the submissions which have been made cannot be considered as substantial question of law which has been appreciated and considered by both the courts below. The Civil Suit was preferred by the applicants as an heir of Khumaji Maali, which came to be dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Palanpur by judgment and order dated 24.11.1998. The Civil Appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 2/99 was also preferred which also came to be dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Dessa confirming the order passed by the trial court. The trial court has specifically considered the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court and also the factual position on appreciation of evidence, where it is clearly reflected and discussed in the judgment, that, inquiry was made and after hearing the Settlement Commissioner at Delhi had decided the same vide order dated 19.6.68. There is a reference to the other evidence including the testimony of witnesses at Exh.101 and 92 etc., and, therefore, considering the concurrent findings of facts given by two courts below on this issue, there is no question of law much less any substantial question of law, which can be said to have been arisen for consideration of this Court.
Therefore, considering the settled principles that the scope of exercising discretion u/s 100 of Code of CPC in Second Appeal is very limited as laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in the catena of judicial pronouncements including the observations made in judgment reported in Gurdev Kaur and Others Vs. Kaki and Others, and subsequent judgment reported in State Bank of India and Others Vs. S.N. Goyal, more particularly, para 15, there is no substantial questions of law which can be said to be involved, and, therefore, present Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine and accordingly it stands dismissed.