9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in any case, the Trial Court has analysed the sale deed and evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff could not prove his case. In the opinion of this Court, the Appellate Court also having upheld this very finding, no substantial question of law arises in this matter and there is no ground for warranting interference against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court. It is settled law that in a second appeal, the scope of interference is quite narrow - this Court is of the opinion that no interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, is warranted, in the present second appeal. Appeal dismissed. - RSA 12/2022, CM Appls. 4984/2022 and 4985/2022 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2022 - Prathiba M. Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be dismissed by the ASJ-02/South East/Saket/Delhi (hereinafter Appellate Court ) vide the impugned order dated 30th July 2021 which has been challenged in the present second appeal before this Court. 4. The case of the Plaintiff is that he purchased a plot of land admeasuring 1000 square yards forming part of Khasra No. 64/4/2 from one Sh. Kanwar Singh and Sh. Risal Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 4th October, 1985. According to the Plaintiff, the plot was bounded on the East by a private Raasta having 10 feet width, on the West by a Raasta of 15 feet width, on the North by land belonging to a third party and on the South by a Raasta of 30 feet width. From the said plot, the Plaintiff sold 450 square yards to different purchaser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit marked as Ex, DW1/A and along with Sarza plan. 7. After analysing the sale deed on record, the Trial Court came to the following conclusions: 16. At this juncture it would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant portion of the sale deed dated 4th October, 1985. Exhibit PW 3/1 which is as under: Whereas the vendors are co-owner, occupiers and in absolute possession in a piece of land measuring i bigha i.e. 1000 square yards part of Khasra No. 64/4/2/situated in the area of village Nangloi jaat, Delhi and bounded as under: East: Raasta 10 feet wide North: Other's Property West: Raasta 15 feet wide South: Raasta 30 feet wide 17. In the entire sale deed and even in the portion a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the said order had also been dismissed by the Appellate Court. The finding of the Appellate Court is as under: 22. The official witnesses examined by plaintiff did not probabilize the case of plaintiff with regard to aforesaid aspects and therefore, their testimonies are discarded by me being inconsequential in nature. Testimonies of plaintiff witnesses were bereft of relevant details and they were not trustworthy. Therefore, I discarded the same. 23. So far as defendant no. 2 is concerned, it examined, DW2-M.S. Narwal Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department. This witness stuck to his version that 10th ft. wide raasta on east side was not the property of plaintiff. Coupled with the same, in his cross-examinati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiff/Appellant is that the Trial Court has wrongly non-suited the Plaintiff. He submits that in the present case, a substantial question arises as to whether the Trial Court was right in holding that since the sellers were not produced as witness before the Trial Court, the case of the Plaintiff was not proved. 10. Heard. An analysis of the Trial Court's judgment clearly shows that the Trial Court has perused the sale deed and has also reviewed the evidence on record. Thereafter, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the 10 ft. Raasta on the East was not part of the land which was sold. The Trial Court only made a passing observation that the best evidence to prove the Plaintiff's case would have been the sellers, whom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 100 Code of Civil Procedure is limited solely to decide a substantial question of law, if at all the same arises in the case. It has deprecated the practice of the High Court routinely interfering in pure findings of fact reached by the courts below without coming to the conclusion that the said finding of fact is either perverse or not based on material on record. 13. In Ramanuja Naidu v. V. Kanniah Naidu (1996 3 SCC 392), this Court held: It is now well settled that concurrent findings of fact of trial court and first appellate court cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Single Judge of the High Court totally misconceived his jurisdiction in de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
