Full Judgment
S.A.No.496/2013 27.1.2014 Shri S.D.Shukla,learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission.
1. This second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.75-A/2011 by learned Additional District Judge, Amarpatan, District Satna (M.P.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.4.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.10-A/2008 by learned Civil Judge, Class- I,Amarpatan, District Satna (M.P.) by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been rejected.
2. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings on the basis of evidence that Raghuvansh Prasad and Shivpal have 1/3rd share each in the disputed property. The findings of both the court below are based on appreciation of facts and proper appreciation of legal position. No substantial question of law is involved in this case, appeal is therefore dismissed. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.1079/2012 27.1.2014 Shri S.A.Wakil,learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission.
1. This second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.7.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.2-A/2012 by learned Ist Additional District Judge, Waraseoni, District Balaghat (M.P.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.116-A/2010 by learned Civil Judge, Class-II,Waraseoni, District Balaghat (M.P.) by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been rejected.
2. Plaintiffs have filed their suit claiming their share in the property of their father who was having two wives. The second wife was mother of the defendants but she was living with the plaintiffs. But their share in the property was not found proved by both the courts below.
3. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact. Therefore, considering the concurrent findings of both the courts below based on facts and further considering the fact that no substantial question of law is involved in this case, appeal is dismissed. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.1093/2012 27.1.2014 Shri R.S.Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission.
1. This second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 278.9.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.12-A/2011 by learned District Judge, Katni (M.P.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.7-A/2011 by learned 1st Civil Judge, Class-I,Katni (M.P.) by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for possession and compensation has been dismissed.
2. Plaintiffs have filed suit on the ground that the suit land has been encroached by PWD by constructing house/shops over the land. Both the courts below have given concurrent finding that plaintiff has no title over the suit property.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards certain discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of revenue record and submitted that shops have not been shown in the map submitted by the revenue authorities. It is not necessary that every details of constructions to be shown in the revenue record without any amendment in the map or record.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted copy of order dated 11.11.2013 passed in S.A. No.959/2011 in which while admitting the second appeal substantial questions have been framed with regard to legality of judgment of lower appellate court in reversing the finding of trial court in an eviction suit. The order of admission of Second Appeal in one case is not a judicial precedent because it does not dispose of the appeal finally. It only mentioned that substantial question is involved in the appeal. However order citied by the learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable as judicial precedent to the present case 5. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence and discrepancies in the evidence of defendant cannot be taken as proof of plaintiff's case. Therefore, considering the concurrent findings of both the courts below based on facts and further considering the fact that no substantial question of law is involved in this case, appeal is dismissed. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.399/13 27.1.2014 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that compromise/settlement between the parties is going to be filed today. List this case alongwith compromise/settlement for consideration in the next week. I.R. to continue. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.954/2012 27.1.2014 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter has been compromised and prays for two weeks time to file compromise. List after compromise is filed. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.810/2012 27.1.2014 Shri A.P.Shroti, Counsel for the appellant. Shri K.S.Patel, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on admission. This second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC by the appellant is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether both the courts below are justified in disbelieving the registered Sale Deed dated 3/4/1999 received on 17/1/2006 on the basis of certain discrepancies in oral evidence and relying upon the later Sale deed executed by the seller to other person?."
Issue notice of appeal to the respondents on payment of PF within 7 days returnable within 6 weeks. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has filed an application for correction of the cause title, I.A.No.855/2013, which is not on record. Office is directed to list the I.A before issuing notice to the respondents. List after service on respondents for final hearing in due course. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.1237/12 27.1.2014 Shri Ravi Ranjan, Counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission. This second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC by the appellant is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1."Whether both the courts below are justified in holding that the sale of an idol and its property in favour of his own wife is valid without any proof of legal necessity or benefit to the State?."
2. "Whether learned trial court is justified in rejecting the suit on the ground that plaintiff is not claiming the relief of declaration in sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 as void.?."
3. "Whether the courts below are justified in holding that the defendants have acquired the title by way of adverse possession. 4."Whether learned lower appellate court is justified in holding that suit filed by Guddu Rawat claiming himself to be Shebait is not maintainable as the judgment and decree declaring him as Shebiat has been remanded back by the Appellate court?."
Respondents No.1 to 3 are represented by counsel therefore no further notice to them is required. List the case for final hearing in due course. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.730/2013 27.1.2014 Shri R.P.Khare, Counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission. This second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC by the appellant is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1."Whether both the courts below are justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree against the appellant/defendant inspite of the fact that adverse possession has been proved by admission made by plaintiff in his application filed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M. and rejected the plea of adverse possession on the ground that defendant have not filed any counter claim?."
2. "Whether both the courts below are justified in passing impugned judgment and decree inspite of the suit being time barred under Section 27 of the Indian Limitation Act?."
3. "Whether looking to the dispute between the parties with regard to possession of land, the Commissioner ought to have been appointed by the courts below?."
Issue notice of appeal to the respondents on payment of PF within 7 days returnable within 6 weeks. List the case for final hearing after service on respondents in due course. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.640/2012 27.1.2014 Shri G.R.Deshmukh, Counsel for the appellant. Shri K.S.Patel, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on I.A.No.6475/2012, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant came to know about the judgment and decree dated 13/1/2012 only on 26/4/2012 as no information was given to him by his counsel. Thereafter the appellant applied for certified copy and filed this appeal. Considering the fact the delay has occurred due to negligence on the part of the counsel and further considering the principle that litigant should not be made to suffer for the mistake of counsel, I.A is allowed. Delay in filing th appeal is condoned. List the case for admission in due course. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.60/2014 27.1.2014 Shri Dilip Parihar, Counsel for the appellant. Case is listed for hearing on I.A.No.1330/14 and I.A.No.940/2014. Issue notice of both the applications to the respondents on payment of PF within 7 days returnable within 4 weeks. In the meanwhile the execution of the impugned judgment and decree so far as it relates to possession of the disputed property shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing as appellant has already deposited Rs.6300/- List this case immediately after service on respondent for consideration of the aforesaid I.As. Certified copy as per rules. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.91/14 27.1.2014 Shri Atulanand Awasthy, Counsel for the appellant. Issue notice of I.A.No.1443/14, an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC to the respondents on payment of PF within 7 days returnable within 4 weeks. In the meanwhile the execution of the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.10.13 passed in Civil Appeal No.57-A/13 by learned Additional Judge to the Ist Additional District Judge, Chindwara affirming the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2010 passed in Civil Suit No.85-A/2009 by learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Saunsar shall remain stayed so far as it relates to the suit property. List in the second week of March, 2013. Certified copy as per rules. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.40/14 27.1.2014 Let record of both the courts below be called and thereafter list the case for admission in the first week of March, 2014. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.436/2013 27.1.2014 Learned counsel for the respondent prays for time to file reply of I.A.No.5793/13. Let reply be filed by the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile let record of both the courts below be called and thereafter list the case for hearing on the aforesaid I.A. in the first week of March, 2014. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.931/2004 27.1.2014 Case is listed for hearing on I.A.No.12218/13, which is an application for urgent hearing of the appeal. List this appeal for final hearing in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.698/2001 27.1.2014 Case is listed for hearing on I.A.No.5013/13, which has already been disposed of vide order dated 9/12/2013. List this appeal for final hearing in due course. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.860/2013 27.1.2014 List the case alongwith the service report in the third week of February, 2014. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.1001/13 27.1.2014 None for the appellant. List in the first week of March, 2014. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.57/2014 27.1.2014 Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Counsel for the appellant Let record of both the courts below be called and thereafter list the case for admission. In the meanwhile the execution of the impugned judgment and decree so far as it relates to the possession of the disputed property shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. List the case in the second week of February, 2014. Certified copy as per rules. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.582/2010 27.1.2014 Shri Puneet Shroti, Counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission. This second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC by the appellant is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether learned appellate court is justified in declaring the Sale Deed dated 8.3.96 inspite of no cross objection by the respondent?."
Respondents are represented by counsel therefore no further notice to them is required. I.R. granted on 16.7.2010 shall remain continued till the disposal of the appeal subject to fulfillment of conditions mentioned therein with regard to furnishing of appropriate security, which was required to be furnished within 30 days from the date of the order alongwith an undertaking. I.A.No.5981/2010 is disposed of accordingly. List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb S.A.No.783/2012 27.1.2014 Shri S.D.Gupta, Counsel for the appellant. Shri K.S.Patel, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on admission. This second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC by the appellant is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether lower appellate court is justified in setting aside the judgment ad decree passed by learned Trial court by reversing the reasoned findings with regard to partition and Sale Deed dated 21.7.1970?."
Issue notice of appeal to the respondents No.1 to 4 alongwith notice of I.A.No.12466/13 on payment of PF within 7 days returnable within 6 weeks. In the meanwhile respondents are directed not to alienate the suit property or create any third party interest in the suit property till the next date of hearing. Certified copy as per rules. (A.K. Sharma) Judge sb