Surendra Pal Singh vs Municipal Corporation, Singrauli

This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Singrauli in Civil Appeal No.33/2018, affirming the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2016 passed by First Civil Judge Class-I, Singrauli in Civil Suit No.182-A/2015, whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit.

The plaintiff/appellant has filed the original suit for mandatory injunction and possession of the open land of 10 x 12 meter area adjacent to LIG House No.1. The suit was contested by defendant/respondent. The suit was dismissed by First Civil Judge Class-I, Singrauli in Civil Suit No.182-A/2015, vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2016. Against the said judgment and decree plaintiff/appellant filed an appeal, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019. Hence, this second appeal.

It is not in dispute that the Development Authority, Singrauli (hereinafter referred to as 'Authority' for short) has proposed a scheme in the name of 'Harrai Residential Scheme', in which some LIG houses were advertised to be allotted to the members, who will deposit Rs.3,000/- as registration fees. In the said scheme appellant Surendra Pal Singh was allotted House No.1 situated at the corner of the colony and adjacent to it there is an open land of 10 x 12 meter area, which was auctioned by the authorities to some other person for Rs.1,95,000/-. Appellant has filed the civil suit for mandatory injunction for the purposes that the said open land be allotted to him and in the light of that allotment the possession of the land be also directed to be handed over to him.

The plaintiff/appellant has raised his sole argument on the basis of an agreement Ex.P-1 dated 1.6.1990 executed by the Authority, in which following para is relevant which reads as under :-

"3 यह  कि  भवन  क्रमांक  01  जो किनारे  में  निर्मित  है  जिसमें वर्ग फिट .......... वर्ग फिट भूमि निर्धारित  माप  से  अधिक  है जिसका अतिरिक्त रूपया ............ होता  है  आवंटी  को  प्राप्त होने पर प्रधिकरण कोष में जमा करना होगा ।"

If the said agreement is accepted as such, then too, it will not be assumed that the said clause is mandatory on the Authority, because in the agreement no cost is revealed regarding the extra land, which is available in vicinity of the house allotted to the appellant. On going through the said lines also, it does not appear that the condition was mandatory for any of the party of the agreement.

The trial Court has drawn right conclusion on the basis of said lines of agreement and has dismissed the suit of the appellant for injunction and mandatory injunction, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties. The said judgment of the trial Court is affirmed by the appellate Court.

The appellant has filed this appeal raising following substantial questions of law :-

"(1) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that appellant did not have any right by Exhibit P/1 to allot the vacant land situated at the east side of LIG House No.1 admeasuring 10 x 12 square meter in his favour ?

(2) Whether the Courts below committed error of law in not considering the Exhibit P/1, Exhibit P/2 and Exhibit P/6 in accordance with law ?

(3) Whether the learned Courts below have exercised the jurisdiction vested in them with material illegality and irregularity which has caused miscarriage of justice due to dismissal of suit and appeal respectively ?"

After going through the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant, in my considered opinion it appears that the questions which are raised by the appellant are related with the findings of facts and there appears to be no question of law involved in this appeal. If concurrent findings are there, then the second appeal may only be admitted if there is substantial question of law. I am of the view that there is no considerable substantial question of law for consideration of this Court in this second appeal.

In case of Guruvachan Kaur Vs. Salikram [(2010) 15 SCC 530], it was held that it is settled law that, in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact, recorded by the first appellate Court which is the final Court of fact, unless the same is found to be perverse, which is discussed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Damodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi and others [(2016) 3 SCC 78], wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that even if the finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a question of law.

In view of aforesaid discussion and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find any illegality or perversity to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by learned trial Court and the first appellate Court. After hearing the counsel and on going through the record, there appears to be no substantial question of law involved in this appeal.

During the course of argument, learned counsel for appellant has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Jaswant Vs. Deen Dayal [2011(2) MPLJ 576] and prays that this appeal may be admitted for hearing.

So far as the case cited by learned counsel for appellant in the case Jaswant (supra) is concerned, this Court has gone through the observations given in the said judgment which are related to the dispute regarding demarcation of property. In my opinion the said judgment has no relevance in the appeal in hand.

Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed, at admission stage.