1. The present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants (now heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff) challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamnagar dated 26/02/1999 in Regular Civil Suit No. 337/1985 by which the learned trial Court dismissed the said suit preferred by the original plaintiff, which has been confirmed by the learned appellate Court by impugned judgment and order dated 07/04/2011 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 59/1999.
2. Original plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 337/1985 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamnagar against the respondents-original defendants for declaration and permanent injunction to declare that he is the owner of the disputed suit property in question. On appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court disbelieved the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that he is the owner of the disputed property in question. Being aggrieved an dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dated 26/02/1999 in Regular Civil Suit No.337/1985 in dismissing the said suit, original plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 59/1999 before the learned District Court, Jamnagar and the learned appellate Court by impugned judgment and order has dismissed the said Appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below, the appellants-heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff have preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Heard Shri Shrimali, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri M.I. Mansoori, learned advocate appearing on behalf respondent no. 2 at length and considered and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below specifically holding on appreciation of evidence that original plaintiff has failed to prove that he was the owner of the disputed property in question. The findings of fact given by both the Courts below are on appreciation of evidence, which are not required to be interfered with by this Court and/or the same are not required to be re-appreciated in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless it is found to be perverse.
5. Shri Shrimali, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-heirs and legal representative of the original plaintiff has failed to satisfy the Court how the finding of fact given by both the Courts below are perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record. Shri Shrimali, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-heirs and legal representative of the original plaintiff is also not in a position to point out any substantial question of law, which arises to be considered in the present Second Appeal.
6. In view of the above when there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below disbelieving the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the original plaintiff was the owner of the disputed property in question and the same are on appreciation of evidence, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. In view o the above, the present Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1685/2012 In view of the dismissal of the Second Appeal, no order in the Civil Application.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.) siji Top