Natthu Kachhi vs Durga Prasad And Others

Heard on I.A. No. 3992/2020, which is an application for taking additional documents on record.

Considering  the  reasons  stated  in  the  application,  it  is  allowed.

Documents are taken on record.

Heard on the question of admission as well as on I.A. No. 689/2020, which is an application for stay.

This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No. 1 being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 6.12.2019 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Umariya in Regular Civil Appeal No. 23A/2017 whereby the learned Second Additional District Judge has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by First Civil Judge Class I, Umariya in Civil Suit No. 53A/2015 on 12.9.2017.

There are concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in favour of respondent No. 1/plaintiff. Both the Courts below found title of respondent No. 1 over one third share of suit property situated at Khasra No. 6, total area 0.267 hectare, village Sanpur, Patwari Halka No. 42, Tahsil-Chandiya. Both the Courts below further held that the suit property was purchased by late Barelal, late Vishali and respondent No. 1 jointly through registered sale-deed dated 6.1.1977 from Ramlal, Lakhanlal and Ramesh Chandra Agrawal. The appellant is the son of late Barelal, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are legal heirs of late Vishali.

On the basis of evidence produced by both the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 has duly proved that he is the joint owner of the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 6.1.1977. No partition took place in between him and other co-owners late Barelal and late Vishali but due to wrong nomination order, the entire suit property was registered in the name of Vishali and Barelal in the ratio of 3/4th share of Barelal and 1/4th share of Vishali.

The appellant is challenging the findings of learned Courts below on the grounds that in the year 1978, mutation order was passed by the revenue Court, which has not been challenged by respondent No. 1 for a long time. It is also claimed that respondent No. 1 relinquished his right over his 1/3rd share of the suit property by taking possession of another property, which was situated at Madlin Mandir. In the alternate, a plea was taken by the appellant that his father Panchchi paid 3/4th consideration amount for execution of sale deed dated 6.1.1977 (Ex.P-9). However, the appellant has failed to prove all these pleas nor any deed has been produced or proved by the appellant to show that respondent No. 1 relinquished his right over the suit property after getting alternative property in place of suit property.

In the opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by both the Courts below are properly based on evidence adduced by both the parties. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below. There is no substantial question of law in this appeal for consideration as proposed by the appellant in Page No. 7 of this appeal.

Resultantly, in the absence of any substantial question of law, this second appeal is hereby dismissed at motion hearing stage. As a consequence thereof I.A. No. 689/2020 is also dismissed.