Ramanand vs Ramrangeele
2021 Latest Caselaw 8855 MP

                                                                    1                              SA-1473-2020
                                          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                    SA No. 1473 of 2020
                                                 (RAMANAND AND OTHERS Vs RAMRANGEELE AND OTHERS)


                                  Jabalpur, Dated : 15-12-2021
                                        Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Kaustubh

                                  Shankar Jha, learned counsel for the appellants.
                                        Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is on behalf of defendants being aggrieved of the judgment dated 22nd October,

2020 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Rewa in RCA No.101/2019 reversing the findings of the trial Court given vide judgment dated 10/07/2019 in Civil Suit No.1100006A/2013 (Ramrangeele Vs. Ramanand and others).

Controversy in narrow compass is to the effect that one Ramkrishna had three sons namely Veerbhan, Ramrangeele and Ramanand. Admittedly Veerbhan was bachelor. It is the contention of the defendants/appellants that Veerbhan being bachelor and also blind was residing with his brother Ramanand. It is further submitted that family partition had taken place between three brothers and this fact is not disputed. It is submitted that vide

sale deed dated 04/05/2007 Veerbhan had executed sale deed Ex.P/12 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 namely Janaklali Pandey and Geeta Pandey who happens to be daughter-in-law of Ramanand.

It is submitted that vide order dated 29/09/2007 mutation order was passed by Tahsildar. On 26/09/2007 Veerbhan had appeared in the mutation proceeding and had filed his written statement. He had also affixed thumb impression on the margin of the order sheet which was maintained by Tahsildar while carrying out the mutation proceedings.

Plaintiff's case is that the said sale deed was executed in a fraudulent manner and that sale deed was null and void. Plaintiff's case is that Veerbhan was old, infirm, therefore, he was not in a position to execute sale deed in favour of the daughters-in-law of Ramanand and if that sale deed is treated to be null and void, then the law of succession will follow and the land which Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2021.12.16 10:04:51 IST 2 SA-1473-2020 had devolved upon Veerbhan will be devolved amongst legal heirs of Veerbhan.

Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the appellants, submits that learned first appellate Court has placed incorrect reliance on the provisions contained in Rule 31 of M.P. Registration Rules, 1939 and without taking into

consideration the law laid down by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhura Vs. Sitaram, 1981 M.P. Weekly Notes Note, Note 207, has passed judgment of reversal overlooking the provisions contained in Section 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 35, 58, 59, 60 and 61 of Registration Act, 1908. It is submitted that once endorsement was made about presence of the author of sale deed namely Veerbhan and the thumb impression of Veerbhan was duly identified by the witnesses to the sale deed who happens to be real brother-in-law of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, then there was no occasion for the first appellate Court that the said sale deed be declared to be null and void transaction.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

(i) Whether first appellate Court was justified in overlooking the procedure laid down for endorsement to be made by the Registrar while accepting a document for registration in compliance of provisions of Sections 58 to 60 of the Registration Act and the Rules of 1939 which itself is proof of due execution of the sale deed ?

(ii) Whether first appellate Court failed to appreciate that in the mutation proceedings before Tahsildar which was concluded on 29/09/2007 Veerbhan had personally appeared and had given his written consent for mutation admitting that he had himself carried out execution of sale deed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 ?

Signature Not Verified

(iii) Whether the suit which was filed by the plaintiff is SAN

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2021.12.16 10:04:51 IST 3 SA-1473-2020 barred by limitation ?

As the respondents are already represented by Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel, list this appeal for final hearing in its turn.

Since the appeal has been admitted on the aforesaid substantial questions of law, parties are directed to maintain status-quo regarding possession, as it exists today.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

ts

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2021.12.16 10:04:51 IST