Ram Charitar Ram and ors. Vs. Madheshwar Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. - (v) is the suit bad for defect of parties? 252 of 1924 as well as the admission of the defendants contained in para-8 of the written statement read with the judgments rendered in title suit nos. 5 series) and it is well settled proposition of law that this court while considering the matter in exercise of its jurisdiction in second appeal would not reverse the finding of fact as recorded by the last court of facts i. 7) executed by the descendants as well as the family members of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh who were the ex-landlords. mallika begum, air 2002 sc 827 :2002 (2) jcr 63 (sc), it has been observed by the apex court that it is well settled that the high court while considering the matter in exercise of its jurisdiction in second appeal or civil revision would not reverse the finding of fact as recorded by the courts below. 169 and 478 as well as 152 and 180 so as to confer upon them any title by virtue of the sale deeds aforesaid in respect thereof.vishnudeo narayan, j. 1. this appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs-appellant has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.4.1984 and 3.5.1984 respectively passed in title appeal no. 14 of 1967 by shri r.k. tuly, 3rd additional sub-ordinate judge, palamau whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed in part and the judgment and decree of the trial court passed in title suit no. 14 of 1964 was modified and the right and title in respect of plot no. 464 only was declared in favour of the plaintiffs and they are entitled to get the recovery of possession over the same and suit of the plaintiffs was decreed only in respect of plot no. 464 appertaining to khata no. 55. it is relevant to mention here that the trial court had decreed the suit in part declaring right, title, interest and possession over the plot nos. 169 of khata no. 1, 464 of khata nos. 55 and 478 of khata no. 60 and they were entitled for recovery of possession in respect thereof.2. the plaintiffs-appellant had filed title suit no. 14 of 1964 for declaration that plot no. 169 of khata no. 1 having an area of 10 decimals, plot no. 464 of khata no. 55 having an area of 1.35 decimals. plot no. 152 having an area of 16 decimals, plot no. 180 having an area of 28 decimals and plot no. 478 of khata no. 60 having an area of 12 decimals are the raiyat lands of the plaintiffs in respect of which they have acquired valid right, title and possession over the same and the defendants are liable to be evicted there from and the plaintiffs be put in possession over the same and rs. 366/- was also claimed as mesne profit and the future amount of mesne profit shall be ascertained in a separate proceeding after disposal of the suit.3. the case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that there were several co-sharers landlord including nawab saheb of patna whose estate was managed by patna ward encumbered estate. rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh and his family and sheodhari singh in respect of village-dihri bishrampur pargana japla, thana-hussainabad, thana no. 386 in the district of palamau and village-dihri bishrampur was partitioned amongst the co-sharer landlords and a separate takhata for three annas share was allotted in the name of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh and his family vide partition suit no. 252 of 1924 and said rai saheb dharmadeo narayan singh came in possession of his share separately. plot no. 169 appertaining to khata no. 1 of village dihri bishrampur was recorded as bakast of sheodhari singh aforesaid but in the said partition the suit plot was allotted to the takhata of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh and his family members and there was a partition among the members of his family after his death and the said plot was sold to the plaintiffs by the ex-landlord by registered sale deeds dated 16.10.1960, 19.9.1960, 15.4.1961 and 7.3.1961 and since then the plaintiffs are in possession of the said plot. it is alleged that plot no. 464 appertaining to khata no. 55 stands recorded in the name of mahabir nunia in the cadastral survey records of right and it was resumed by the ex-landlord who settled the same with one bindeshwari singh of village-dihri bishrampur and said bindeshwari singh executed a deed of registered wazidaba dated 10.6.1928 in favour of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh under whose takhata this plot has fallen in the said partition suit and the plaintiff no. 1 got settlement of 11 decimals out of the said plot about 16 years ago and came in possession over the same as raiyat afterwards the plaintiffs purchased the remaining area of plot no. 464 by virtue of the registered sale deeds dated 16.10.1960, 19.9.1960, 15.1.1961 and 7.3.1961 executed by the ex-landlord aforesaid and since then they are in possession of the said plot. plot nos. 152, 180 and 468 appertaining to khata no. 60 were recorded as gairmajarwa malik in the cadastral survey records of right and these plots were also allotted to rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh and the plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid plots through registered sale deed dated 16.10.1960, 19.9.1960, 15.4.1961 and 7.3.1961 from the ex-landlord and they are coming in possession over the same since then. it is alleged that plot no. 152 was recorded, as nala in the survey records of right but rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh was in exclusive possession over it as he had filled up the ditch and after levelling it amalgamated it with plot no. 151 which was his exclusive land allotted to his share. it is alleged that plot nos. 464, 479, 478 and 480 stand amalgamated and the plaintiffs have built a house in plot no. 180 and plot no. 152 is amalgamated with plot no. 151 and similarly plot no. 180, is an amalgamated with plot no. 181. it is alleged that plot no. 169 is amalgamated with plot no. 170 and all the aforesaid plots belong to the plaintiffs and plot no. 478 is close proximity with plot no. 464. the plaintiffs were come in possession of all the said plots aforesaid but the defendants in the year 1961 intended to take forceful possession of the suit plots and with that intent they started a proceeding under section 144 of the code of criminal procedure in respect thereof and the said proceeding was converted into a proceeding under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure and the said proceeding terminated in favour of the defendants declaring their possession over the suit lands and thereafter the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit plots. hence the necessity for the suit.4. the case of the defendant nos. 1 to 1(b), 2 and 3 as per their written statement, inter alia, is that the land of khata no. 55 with the land of other khatas and abandoned holdings were taken in settlement by the ancestor of the defendants and his several other aganates and bindeshwari singh took settlement from the nawab of patna by means of hukumnama and bindeshwari singh, who was the maternal uncle of defendant nos. 1 and 2, was sent alone to patna to take settlement and he executed a kabuliyat and go the hukumnamain his name but the lands under settlement came and continue in possession of the respective settlees including the defendants as agreed upon. it is alleged that the suit plot no. 464 thus came in possession of original defendant and after his death, defendant nos. 1 to 1(b) who are his sons, are coming in exclusive possession over the said suit plot no. 464. it is further alleged that bindeshwari singh has neither executed any bazidaba nor he could do so as the settlees were really the defendants and many others but without whose consent it could not be done and said bazidaba is a forged and fabricated document brought into existence by interested persons. their case further is that rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh on purchase of the share in the estate of dihri bishrampur could not get possession as against the other co-sharers including sheodhari singh and he filed partition suit and obtained a decree but no delivery of possession could be affected and rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh did not come in possession over the lands which remained in possession of the defendants and others. it is alleged that later on, village-dihri bishrampur was alleged exclusively to janardhan prasad singh, one of the co-sharers of kachra estate and he settled by allowing the defendants and their ancestors and other raiyats to cultivate the disputed land on payment of adbatai rent but no receipt was ever granted and thus the tenants including the defendants continued in cultivating possession of the respective lands and went on paying adbatai rent as agreed and said janardhan prasad singh died issueless and his agnate began to take possession of the property of his share by force as against his widow most. jarbasi kuer resulting in criminal cases and the tenants of dihri bishrampur including the defendants' family sided with most. jarbasi kuer to their great annoyance with the result that the co-sharers had to compromise the case and grant absolute right to most. jarbasi kuer over the share of her husband but gave her other properties in lieu of dihri bishrampur. further case of the defendants is that muneshwar prasad singh, the younger brother of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh began to manage the affairs of dihri bishrampur and out of grudge wanted to disturb the possession the raiyats including the defendants over the lands of their possession and when he could not succeed he set up plaintiff no. 1 and others to oust the rajput raiyats and for this granted rent receipt to them and also initiated a proceeding under section 107 of the code of criminal procedure through plaintiff no. 1 against the rajput raiyats and thereafter proceeding under sections 144 and 145 of the code of criminal procedure were also initiated in which the possession of the defendants and other rajput raiyats was upheld throughout. it is also alleged that some suits were also filed but none of the suits, the defendants were made parties and the ex-landlord could not get possession over any land.5. further case of the defendants is that plot no. 169 was bakast land in possession of sheodhari singh, the ancestor of original defendant no. 1 who began to cultivate it along with his brother damodar singh. plot no, 180 stands recorded as 'pyne' in gairmajaruwa malik khas but the defendant reclaimed and has converted it into tanr land since more than 12 years and has been coming in peaceful possession of the same. it is alleged that defendant nos. 2 and 3 who are settled raiyats and the resident of village-dihri bishrampur, reclaimed plot nos. 478 and 152 which were originally gairmajaruwa malik land and have converted them into paddy land and it stands amalgamated with plot nos. 148, 149, 150 and 151, some of which have been settled with the defendant nos. 2 and 3 by the ex-landlord and rent receipts were granted for the same by the ex-landlord and thereafter by the state and the matter for opening demand for other disputed land is still pending.6. further case of the defendant is that the suit plots were not in possession of the ex-landlord at any time even 12 years and particularly at the time of vesting of the estate and as such they could not have acquired any raiyati right and they cannot sell the same to the plaintiffs as falsely alleged and the sale deeds in favour of the defendants are not genuine document, rather they are forged, fabricated and bogus document without consideration.7. in view of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court has formulated the following issues for adjudication in this case: --(i) have the plaintiffs any cause of action for the suit?(ii) is the suit as framed maintainable?(iii) is the suit barred by limitation and adverse possession?(iv) is the suit barred by waiver, estoppel and acquiescence?(v) is the suit bad for defect of parties?(vi) did dharamdeo narain singh ever acquire exclusive right over the suit land after getting any actual delivery of possession?(vii) are the kewalas relied upon by the plaintiffs genuine and for consideration and if so, did they create any title or possession of the plaintiffs over them?(viii) have the plaintiffs any right, title or possession over the suit land?(ix) are the plaintiffs entitled to any relief or reliefs if any, and if so, to what extent?8. in view of the oral and documentary evidence on the record, the learned trial court has decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and declared the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs over three suit plots i.e. plot no. 169 of khata no. 1, plot no. 464 of khata no. 55 and plot no. 478 of khata no. 60 and further held that the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession over the same. it has also been held that the plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profit in a separate proceeding after they file a petition for the same and further they shall get back proportionate share according to their right, title and possession over the aforesaid three plots out of the sum of rs. 366/- deposited in the court. in view of the findings aforesaid, the learned trial court decreed the suit in part. while deciding issue nos. (vi), (vii) and (viii) the trial court has held that rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh was one of the co-sharers landlord of village-dihri bishrampur and he has also purchased some estate in the jamindari and he filed partition suit no. 252 of 1924 for carving out a separate takhata in his favour against sheodhari singh and others and ext. 15 shows that the said suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed in favour of rai saheb dharmadeo narayan singh for carving out his separate takhata of three annas share and accordingly a final decree was passed and demarcation was made and the delivery of possession over the lands allotted to his takhata was made on 24.10.1926 and the case was disposed of on 19.11.1926 and ext. 8 read with ext. 1/a shows that the records of execution case no. 158 of 1926 arising out of partition suit no. 252 of 1924 stands destroyed though ext. 23, the certified copy of the final decree prepared in partition suit no. 252 of 1924 having the partition sheet of three annas share belonging to rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh in village-dihri bishrampur shows that the lands of khata no. 55 only recorded in the name of mahabir nunia was allotted to his takhata and the suit plot no. 464 having an area of 1.35 acres appertains to the said khata. the learned trial court has further held that as per the averments made in para-8 of the written statement read with the judgment of the title suit no. 26 of 1955 it is clear that the contesting defendants had admitted the purchase of the shares of property of village-dihri bishrarnpur by rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh of the separated shares of the estate in village-dihri bishrampur from saiyad md. ismial hussain @ hazanfar nawab and wahidunisa begam, who were defendants in the said partition suit of 1924 and plot no. 169 was allotted to the takhata of saiyed md. hussain @ hazanfar nawab and plot no, 478 was allotted to the takhata of wahidunisa begun as per ext. 23 and the judgment of the title suit no. 2 of 1953 and title suit no. 26 of 1955 which are exts. 16 and 16/b respectively corroborate the factum of purchase of the aforesaid plots by rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh. it has also been held that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit plot nos. 478, 169, 464 by virtue of the four sale deeds exts. 5, 5/a, 5/b and 5/c respectively from the descendants of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh and prior to that 11 decimals out of plot no. 464 has been accepted by the plaintiffs by settlement from rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh. the learned trial court has also held that so far suit plot nos. 152 and 180 appertaining to khata no. 60 is concerned there is no satisfactory evidence brought on the record to hold that they also came in possession of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh.9. being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court, the defendants preferred title appeal no. 14 of 1967. the plaintiffs also filed cross-objection. the learned appellate court below on re-appreciation and reappraisal of the evidence, oral and documentary, on the record allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment of the trial court as a result of which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed only in respect of plot no. 464 of khata no. 55. the learned appellate court below has formulated the only points for adjudication which is to the effect as to whether the plaintiffs have got a valid right and title in respect of the suit plots and whether they are entitled to get recovery of possession over the same. it has been held by the learned appellate court below that ext. 23, the certified copy of the final decree, of partition suit no. 252 of 1924 falsifies the case of the plaintiffs as in the takhata of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh only one suit plot no. 464 has been allotted which was the raiyati land of mahabir nonia and as such the plaintiffs have no case about their vender's title over all the suit plots except suit plot no. 464. the learned appellate court below has further held that the learned trial court has misconstrued the averments made in para-8 of the written statement read with the averments made in the plaint of title suit no. 2 of 1953 and title suit no. 26 of 1955 and their judgment ext. 16 and ext. 16/b respectively and has wrongly come to the conclusion that there is admission of the defendants that the suit plot nos. 169 and 478 had fallen in the takhata of rai saheb dharmdeo narayan singh as there is no such specific admission therein that the plaintiffs venders had title and possession over the suit plot nos. 169 and 478 and further there is no admission in the aforesaid documents that there was a purchase of the shares of property of village-dihri bishrampur by rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh of the separated shares of the estate in village-dihri bishrampur from saiyad md. hussain @ hazanfar nawab and wahidunisa begum, the co-sharers landlords. it has further been held that ext. 6, the registered deed of bazidaba of 1928 executed by bindeshwari prasad singh in favour of rai saheb dharmdeo narayan singh shows that plot no. 464 only out of the suit plots besides several other plots was in possession of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh having his right, title and interest therein. it has also been held that from the documents, it is clear that except suit plot no. 464, the right, title and possession of the venders of the plaintiffs are not established over the suit plots in view of the findings aforesaid, the learned appellate court below declared the right and title of the plaintiffs only in respect of suit plot no. 464 and thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to get recovery of possession over the suit plot no. 464 only.10. this court while admitting the appeal for hearing formulated the following substantial question of law vide order dated 30.4.1986 which runs thus: --'whether before reversing the findings of the trial court, the court below was required to notice the reasonings of the trial court and record its reasons for differing with the same?'11. assailing the impugned judgment it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellant that the impugned judgment with regard to plot nos. 169, 152, 180 and 478 is against the weight of the evidence and contrary to law and the learned appellate court below did not properly construe ext. 23, the sheet of the final decree of partition of partition suit no. 252 of 1924 as well as the admission of the defendants contained in para-8 of the written statement read with the judgments rendered in title suit nos. 2 of 1953 and 26 of 1955 (ext. 16 and ext. 16-b respectively) in respect of plot nos. 169 and 478. it has also been contended that rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh has purchased plot nos. 169 and 478 from the co-sharers landlords and he was in possession thereon and his descendants had executed the sale deeds in respect of the suit plots vide ext. 5 series in favour of the plaintiffs. it has also been submitted that the suit plots appears in the m. form (ext. 19) read with the return (ext. 10) submitted at the time of the vesting of the estate by the ex-landlords and the learned appellate court below has misinterpreted itself in rejecting the aforesaid documents without assigning any cogent reasons. it has also been submitted that the learned appellate court below while reversing the judgment of the trial court in respect of suit plot nos. 169 and 478 has not assigned any cogent reason to meet the reasoning given by the trial court in respect thereof.12. in contra, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants-respondents that the learned appellate court below has meticulously considered the evidence oral and documentary on the record and has assigned cogent reasons for reversing the finding recorded by the trial court in respect of the title of the venders of the plaintiffs in respect of plot nos. 169 and 478. it has also been contended that there is no document of title of the venders of the plaintiffs in respect of plot nos. 169, 478, 152 and 180 so as to confer any title on the plaintiffs by virtue of the sale deeds (ext. 5 series) and it is well settled proposition of law that this court while considering the matter in exercise of its jurisdiction in second appeal would not reverse the finding of fact as recorded by the last court of facts i.e. the appellate court below and the finding arrived at by the appellate court below is based on legal evidence on the record and it does not materially prejudice the case of the appellant and the finding so recorded by the appellate court below cannot be termed as perverse. it has been contended that plot nos. 169, 478, 152 and 150 were neither allotted to the share of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh in the petition of 1924 nor he had purchased the aforesaid plots from the other co-sharers landlords and there is no admission of the defendants in respect thereof either in para-8 of his written statement or in the judgment of the aforesaid two title suits. lastly it has been submitted that ext. nos. 19 and 10 are fraudulent documents having interpolations therein and the learned appellate court below has recorded a finding to that effect in the impugned judgment. therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment requiring an interference therein.13. the plaintiffs-appellant claim to have acquired plot nos. 169, 464, 152, 180 and 478 by virtue of sale deeds dated 15.6.1962, 19.6.1960, 7.3.1961, 16.10.1960 (ext. 5 series) and the sale deed dated 15.4.1961 (ext. 7) executed by the descendants as well as the family members of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh who were the ex-landlords. the executants of the aforesaid sale deeds are said to be the descendants and the other family members of rai saheb* dharamdeo narayan singh and the executants aforesaid claim to be the co-sharers landlords on partition between them. there had been a proceeding under section 144 of the code of criminal procedure bearing misc. case no. 55 of 1961 between the parties in respect of the suit plots besides several other plots and the said proceeding was converted into a proceeding under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure in respect of the suit plots only vide order dated 19.5.1961 (ext. 16/a). admittedly possession of the defendants was declared over all the suit plots as per the order passed in the proceeding aforesaid under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure. plot no. 169 of khata no. 1 stands recorded as bakast malik in the survey records of right. plot nos. 152, 180 and 478 appertaining to khata no. 60 stands recorded as gairmajaruwa malik land in the survey records of rights. plot no. 152 is described as parti nala whereas plot no. 180 stands described as parti pyne and plot no. 478 stands described as parti kadim in the survey records of right. plot no. 464 of khata no. 55 stands recorded as the raiyati land on the name of mahabir nonia. ext. 13 is the survey records of right which evidences the aforesaid facts besides ext. 13/a. the plaintiffs claim to have acquired 11 decimals out of plot no. 464 by settlement from the ex-landlords prior to the aforesaid sale deeds. the defendants claim to have acquired the aforesaid suit plots by virtue of settlement from the ex-landlords. plot no. 164 was resumed by the ex-landlord and there is no dispute in respect of the said plot. bindeshwari singh took settlement of several plots including plot no. 464 of khata no. 55 from the co-sharers landlords saiyad md. ismial hussain @ hazanfar nawab of patna on 5.8.1924. there was a partition suit no. 252 of 1924 for the partition of the estate of mauz-dihri bishrampur among the co-sharers landlords and the said suit was filed on 5.9.1924. ext. 15 is the certified copy of the suit registered in respect of partition suit no. 252 of 1924. it appears from its perusal that preliminary decree was prepared on 29.4.1925 and final decree was prepared on 17.2.1926 and delivery of possession was affected on 8.4.1926 and the case was finally disposed of on 19.11.1926. it appears from ext. 8 read with ext. 1 that the relevant papers of delivery of possession of execution case no. 158 of 1926 stands destroyed in accordance with rules. however, ext. 23 is the partition report along with final sheet of partition suit no. 252 of 1924. rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh was the plaintiff in the said suit and on partition he got a takhata of three annas share by virtue of the final partition in partition suit no. 252 of 1924. other co-sharers landlords also got their respective takhata. it is pertinent to mention here that khata no. 55 which is the raiyati khata in the name of mahabir nonia was allotted in the takhata in the share of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh. it is equally relevant to mention here that khata no. 1 and khata no. 60 or plot nos. 169, 152, 180 and 478 were not allotted in the takhata in the share of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh. plot no. 464 appertains to khata no. 55. bindeshwari singh aforesaid by the registered deed of bazidaba dated 10.7.1928 (ext. 6) relinquished the entire land, which he had got settlement vide deed of settlement dated 5.8.1924 aforesaid, in favour of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh. the said bazidaba was acted upon by shyamdeo narayan singh, a co-sharer of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh, who had made settlement vide ext. 6/a of some of the plots covered by the said deed of bazidaba. the said bazidaba was also found to be a genuine document having been acted upon in title suit no. 26 of 1955. both the courts below have concurrently held that rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh had right, title and interest in respect of plot no. 464 only and the plaintiffs-appellant have acquired valid, right, title and interest in respect of plot no. 464 by virtue of the aforesaid sale deeds coupled with the settlement of 11 decimals of land of the said plot in the year 1948. therefore, the dispute in respect of plot no. 464 stands concluded by the finding of both the courts below and right, title and interest of the plaintiffs- appellant have been rightly declared in their favour in respect of plot no. 464.14. let us now come to plot nos. 169, 152, 180 and 478. it is essential to mention at the very outset that there is no document brought on the record by the plaintiffs-appellant to show that the aforesaid four plots have been allotted to the takhata in the share of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh. the plaintiffs claims the aforesaid suit plots by virtue of the sale deed executed by the descendants and family members of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh. ext. 24 aforesaid only shows that the separate takhata of 4 annas and 2 annas were allotted in the share of defendant no. 1 saiyad md. ismial hussain @ hazanfar nawab and wahidunisa begum respectively who were defendant nos. 11 and 12 in partition suit no. 252 of 1924, however, ext. 23 does not contain the details of the properties allotted to their respective takhatas. there is no document on the record to show that rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh had purchased the share of saiyed md. ismial hussan @ hazanfar nawab and wahidunisa begum allotted to them in the said partition suit. even bazidaba deed (ext. 6) does not whisper about the aforesaid four suit plots having been taken settlement by bindeshwari singh and subsequently relinquished in favour of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh. there is, therefore, no iota of evidence on the record to show that rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh or his defendants or his family members had any right, title and interest in respect of the aforesaid four suit plots so as to confer any title in respect thereof in favour of the plaintiffs-appellant by virtue of the sale deeds executed by them in their favour in respect of the aforesaid four suit plots. it appears that the learned trial court has misconstrued para-8 of the written statement read with the judgment of the title suit no. 26 of 1955 and title suit no. 3 of 1953 for coming to a finding that the defendants-respondent have admitted the purchase of the shares of property of village-dihri bishrampur by rai saheb dharamdas narayan singh of the separated share of the estate in village-dihri bishrampur from saiyad md. ismial hussain @ hazanpur nawab and wahidunisa begum. the learned appellate court below has correctly stated in the impugned judgment that there is no admission of the defendants in para-8 of their written statement read with the judgment passed in title suit no. 2 of 1953 and title suit no. 26 of 1955 that rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh had acquired the share of sayaid md. ismial hussain @ hazanpur nawab and wahidunisa begun in the estate of village-dihri bishrampur. the learned appellant court below has also correctly stated that plot nos. 169 and 478 has not been allotted in takhata of share of rai saheb dharamdeo narayan singh and there is no such admission to that effect by the defendants anywhere. the learned appellate court below has rightly rejected exts. 19 and 10 as fraudulent documents having interpolation therein. the learned appellate court below has assigned cogent reasons for setting aside the finding of the trial court in respect thereof in the impugned judgment. in the case of neelkantan and ors. v. mallika begum, air 2002 sc 827 : 2002 (2) jcr 63 (sc), it has been observed by the apex court that it is well settled that the high court while considering the matter in exercise of its jurisdiction in second appeal or civil revision would not reverse the finding of fact as recorded by the courts below. but it is not an absolute proposition. in a case where the finding is recorded without any legal evidence on the record of on misreading of evidence or suffers from any legal infirmity, which materially prejudices the case of one of the parties or the finding is perverse, it would be open for the high court to set aside such a finding and to take a different view. here in this case, the finding recorded by the appellate court below is based on proper appreciation of the legal evidence on the record and it cannot be said that the learned court below has misread the evidence or it suffers from any legal infirmity which materially prejudices the case of one of the parties or his finding is perverse. i, therefore, see no substance in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellant. to sum up, the plaintiff has not been able to prove that his venders had any right, title and interest in respect of suit plot nos. 169 and 478 as well as 152 and 180 so as to confer upon them any title by virtue of the sale deeds aforesaid in respect thereof. i, therefore, see no illegality in the impugned judgment requiring an interference therein.15. there is no merit in this appeal and it fails. the appeal is hereby dismissed. the impugned judgment is confirmed. however, there shall be no order as to costs.