RAKESH KUMAR Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') challenging the judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 28.1.2003 reversing the findings of facts recorded by the Civil Judge in his judgment dated 29.10.1999.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant (who is now represented by appellant No. 1) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that mutation Nos. 926, 927 and 928 dated 15.4.1991 and mutation No. 970 dated 17.3.1993 are illegal. He also challenged the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1993 passed by the Civil Judge, Mohindergarh in civil suit No. 93 titled as Om Parkash v. Raghbir Singh and prayed for a decree of injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in his possession over the suit property, which is their ancestral land.

(3.) THE aforementioned argument raised by the learned counsel was rejected by the Additional District Judge by holding that from the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, it is apparent that all the concerned parties were present and they had consented to the transfer of the land. Even otherwise, oral exchanges are valid as has been held in the cases of Amar Singh v. Sarna, 1984 R.R.R. 230 : 1982 RLR 32 and Matadin v. Sultan, 1986 R.R.R. 68 : 1986 PLJ 696. Consequently, the mutation Nos. 927, 928 and 970 were also held to be valid. For those reasons which have been assigned by the learned Additional District Judge, no interference would be warranted because these are findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. Under Section 100 of the Code interference in such finding is not to be made unless it is shown that the findings are without evidence. In a catena of judgments, the Supreme Court has taken the view that even if on reappreciation of evidence, this Court records a conclusion different than the one recorded by the Courts below. Interference under Section 100 of the Code is unwarranted. This view has been expressed by the Apex Court in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K.M. Krishnaiah, 1998(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 6 : 1998(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 610 : 1998(3) SCC 331; Satya Gupta v. Brijesh Kumar, 1998(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 37 : 1998(6) SCC 426; Chandrabhagabai v. Ramakrishna and others, 1998(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 391 : 1998(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 133 : 1998(6) SCC 207; Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar and Brothers and another, 1998(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 249 : 1998(6) SCC 748; M.G. Hegde and others v. Vasudev, 2000(2) SCC 213; State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh (dead) through L.Rs., 2000(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 191 : 2000(5) SCC 652; M. Nadar Kesavan Nadar v. Narayanan Nadar Kunjan Nadar, 2000(10) SCC 244; Baidyanath Bhattacharya v. S. Karmakar, 2000(9) SCC 505; Manorama Thampuratti v. C.K. Sujatha Thampuratti, 2000(9) SCC 233; Chandragouda and another v. Shekharagouda S. Pittangoudar, 2000(10) SCC 617; Thimmaiah and others v. Ningamma and another, 2000(7) SCC 409; Mohd. Abdul Muqtedar v. Sk. Fakruddin, 2000(9) SCC 384; G. Thankamma Amma v. N. Raghava Kurup, 2000(9) SCC 517; Ananta Kalappa Jaratakhane v. Krishtappa, 2000(9) SCC 735; Kempaiah v. Doddanaraiah, 2000(9) SCC 60; Mohd. Hadi Hussain v. Abdul Hamid Choudhary, 2000(10) SCC 248 and Ajit Chopra v. Sadhu Ram, 1999(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 635 : 1999(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 575 : 2000(1) SCC 114. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails as no question of law has arisen warranting its admission. Appeal dismissed.