Bhuribai & Ors. Vs.
Ram Narayan & Ors.  INSC 134 (23 January 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2009 (@ SPECIAL
LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 10432 OF 2005) Bhuri Bai and Others .....Appellant(s)
- Versus - Ramnarayan and Others ....Respondent(s)
judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 4.2.2005 in S.A.
No. 572 of 2003 has been impugned in this appeal. The parties are descendants
of common ancestor Pusau, who partitioned his property including the suit land
during his life time.
The suit which was
filed by the appellants herein in Civil Suit No. 103A of 1997 was for
declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of Plot No. 138/6 and
207/1 situated at village Katangi and also for permanent injunction restraining
the respondents- defendants from interfering in their possession.
it appears from the record that the appellants herein have disposed of plot No.
207/1. The suit is only confined in respect of Plot No. 138/6.
is the concurrent finding of both the courts below that the aforesaid plot was
never allotted to the appellants herein in the course of partition.
the aforesaid plot was allotted in partition in favour of the appellants herein
is a pure question of fact. The appellants wanted to rely on certain documents
of partition in order to contend that the aforesaid plot was allotted in their
favour. The concurrent finding of both the courts is that the said claim is
based on interpolation in the deed of partition. This is also concurrently
found by both the courts below that the appellants herein were never in
possession of the said plot. On the other hand, the finding of both the courts
below is that the respondents-defendants were in possession of the said plot.
All these questions are pure questions of fact.
High Court after considering these issues involved in this case rightly held
that, no substantial question of law is involved and the finding which is
sought to be impugned in the second appeal is based on question of fact and
appreciation of evidence, and they do not call for any interference under
Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code.
are in entire agreement with the same finding of the High Court and in our
view, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
Pages: 1 2