Shakuntala Devi And Anr vs Shambhusingh And Others

The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 7/07/2015, passed in Civil Appeal No.75-A/13 by the

learned 1st Additional District Judge, Neemuch, District â€" Neemuch(M.P.), thereby dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and

decree dated 31/07/2012, passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class â€" II, District â€" Neemuch in Civil Suit No.25-A/2011. Hence, the appellants have

preferred the present appeal.

The appellants/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and possession in respect of 1/5th part of agricultural land

bearing Survey No.2646 Area 1.515, 2647 Area 0.105, 1890 Area 0.376, 1898 Area 0.648, 1900 Area 0. 230 which falls in the share of Murlisinghji.

Plaintiffs claimed ownership of 1/5th part of suit land which was of the ownership of Murlisinghji. Defendants have fraudulently got mutated the land

in their name without any right of title. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had sold the land to defendant No.3 on 25/03/2006 and got mutated on 15/12/2008.

The defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied the plaint allegation and pleaded that Plaintiff No.2 â€" Rajendrasingh was never adopted by Murlisingh.

Defendant No.3 Rekha submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 10, 11 and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and

prayed that the suit is barred by limitation, hence, it is dismissed.

The plaintiffs submitted reply to the application and submitted that the plaintiffs got the knowledge of sale-deed and mutation when in another suit

defendant No.14 disclosed all these facts, therefore, suit is in limitation. The trial Court dismissed the suit as the plaintiffs have not prayed for relief

declaring the sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 null and void. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred the first appeal, but the 1st Appellate Court

confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court erred in not appreciating the fact of the

case and have committed grave illegality and perversity in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. He further submits that the suit can not be rejected

under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on account of omission of claiming the relief of cancellation of sale deed. The Courts below has misread the evidence

and the findings of the court below are an outcome of the non-consideration of material evidence and the same is based on the basis of conjectures

and assumptions. In such circumstances and looking to the other facts and circumstances of the case, he submits that the appeal deserves to be

admitted.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submits that no substantial question of law arise in this appeal.

I have gone through the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and have also perused the record. The judgment passed by both the

Courts below are well reasoned and are based on due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. The findings

recorded by the Courts below are the concurrent findings of facts. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show that how the findings of fact

recorded by the Courts below are illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases has held that in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can interfere

with the findings of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse and based on no evidence. Some of these judgments are Hajazat Hussain vs. Abdul

Majeed & others, 2011 (7) SCC, 189, Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012 (8) SCC 148 and Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal,

2012 (7) SCC, 288.

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