Prem Singh vs Madiya Dattak and Another

Hon''ble Shri N.K. Mody, J.—Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08/12/11 passed by ADJ, Manawar Distt. Dhar in FA. No. 4-A/11, whereby judgment dated 21/12/10 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Manawar in Civil Suit No. 83-A/09, whereby suit filed by respondent No. 1 was decreed, was maintained, present appeal has been filed. Draught

Short facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit alleging that the respondent No. 1 is the adopted son of Mohansingh. It was alleged that the adopted parents of the respondent No. 1 declared the respondent No. 1 as his successor and also executed adoption deed in the year 1958. It was alleged that after the death of Mohansingh respondent No. 1 and Badibai adopted mother of respondent No. 1 were owner of the suit property and their name were recorded in the revenue record as owner. It was alleged that Badibai also executed a will in her favor, who died in the year 1994. It was alleged that after her death appellant has got his name mutated in the revenue record in connivance with the revenue authorities on the basis of forged partition. It was alleged that the appellant has got the land mutated in his name showing himself as brother of respondent No. 1, while the appellant is not brother of respondent No. 1. It was prayed that it be declared that the respondent No. 1 is the Bhumiswami and appellant be restrained to interfere into the possession of respondent No. 1. The suit was contested by the appellant. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent No. 1, against which an appeal was filed, which was dismissed, hence this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that from perusal of record it is evident that the judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal and contrary to the documentary evidence Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/6. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.

From perusal of the record it is evident that the appellant is no one but the son of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was aged 70 years at the time of filing of the suit in the year 2009. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are concurrent findings of fact. Since no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, hence appeal filed by the appellant has no merits and the same stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.