NON-REPORTABLE 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)

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted.   

2. The 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.

1

138/6 and 207/1 situated at village Katangi and also

for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-

defendants from interfering in their possession.   

3. Admittedly,  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.

4. It 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.   

5. Whether  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.

2

6. The  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.  

7. We 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.  

.......................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.......................J. New Delhi; (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) January 23, 2009

3