Madhya Pradesh High Court
Samna & Ors. vs Tirath Prasad & Ors. on 1 December, 2022
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 1ST OF DECEMBER, 2022
FIRST APPEAL NO.452 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
1. SAMNA S/O VIRAN AHIR,
AGED 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURE, R/O KARONDIA
AT PRESENT R/O GARIYAD, TAHSIL
BEOHARI DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P.)
2. PREM LAL S/O BIRAN AHIR,
AGED 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURE, R/O KARONDIA
AT PRESENT R/O GARIYAD, TAHSIL
BEOHARI DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P.)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI G.S. BAGHEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. TEERATH PRASAD S/O GOMTI PRASAD
AGED 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE
AND SERVICE, R/O KARONDIA, TAHSIL BEOHARI
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P.)
2. DEVIDEEN S/O DUDALIYA AHIR, AGED 55 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O GARUHA,
P.S. BUDHAR, TAHSIL SOHAGPUR DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (M.P.)
3. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
SHAHDOL (M.P.)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:40:47 PM
- 2 -
4. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BAN SAGAR PROJECT, UNIT NO.1
BANSAGAR, CHIRHULA, REWA (M.P.)
5. RAMDAS S/O VEERAN AHIR,
AGED 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURE, R/O KARONDIA
AT PRESENT R/O GARIYARI, P.S. AND
TAHSIL BEOHARI, DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (M.P.)
...........RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MOHAMMED ALI FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1)
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the Court passed
the following:
JUDGMENT
This first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the
judgment and decree dated 19.01.1998 passed by 2 nd Additional District
Judge, Shahdol, Camp Beohari in Civil Suit no.5-A/91 whereby, suit filed
for declaration of title and permanent injunction and by amendment for
recovery of an amount of Rs.3,67,210/- from the defendant 1, who
received compensation amount in pursuance of the Award dated
09.11.1990 passed in land acquisition case towards acquisition of the land
of Khasra nos.85, 92, 93, 100, 101, 105, 165, 166/1, 94 and 95 total area
4.212 hectare situated in village Karondia Paschim, Tahsil Beohari,
District Shahdol, has been dismissed.
2. In short the facts are that one Jagga was owner/Bhoomiswami of
the land in question who vide gift deed dated 21.02.1981 (Ex.P-3) gifted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:40:47 PM
- 3 -
the suit land in favour of the defendant 5 Ramdas. In turn, the defendant 5
Ramdas sold the disputed land to the defendant 2 Devideen vide
registered sale deed dated 01.04.1982 (Ex.D-1). Thereafter, the defendant
2 Devideen further sold the disputed land to defendant 1 Tirath Prasad
vide regd. sale deed dated 13.06.1988 (Ex.D-2). It is alleged in the plaint
that the gift deed was executed by Jagga in favour of the defendant 5 for
the benefit of joint Hindu family comprising the plaintiffs and defendant
5 Ramdas, who being elder brother was Karta Khandan. During pendency
of suit, the land in question was acquired by the Government and on the
basis of sale deed dtd. 13.06.1988 in favour of defendant 1, he received
the entire amount of award. Accordingly, by way of amendment, the relief
of recovery of an amount of Rs.3,67,210/- was claimed by the plaintiffs
from the defendant 1 Teerath Prasad.
3. The defendant 1 appeared and filed written statement denying the
plaint allegations and contended that the gift deed was executed only in
favour of respondent 5 who sold the land to defendant 2 and then the
defendant 1 purchased the land from defendant 2. As such, the plaintiffs
have no right in the suit property and are not entitled for recovery of
compensation. With these contentions, the suit was prayed to be
dismissed.
4. The defendant 5 appeared and filed written statement admitting the
plaint allegations, whereas the defendant 4 contended that the awarded
amount has already been given to the appropriate person.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:40:47 PM
- 4 -
5. On the basis of plaint allegations, learned trial Court framed as
many as 8 issues and recorded evidence of the parties.After consideration
of the evidence available on record, learned trial Court held that the land
was owned by Jagga who executed gift deed in favour of defendant 5
Ramdas. From the language of the gift deed, it cannot be said that it was
executed for the benefit of joint Hindu family of the plaintiff and
defendant 5. Although learned Court below has held the sale deed dated
13.06.1988 to be void, but refused to grant the relief in favour of the
plaintiffs on the premise that the defendant 5 has not filed any claim.
Accordingly, dismissed the suit in its entirety.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land was gifted
by Jagga for the benefit of joint Hindu family of the plaintiff and
defendant 5 and after holding the sale deed dated 13.06.1988 to be illegal
and void document, learned trial Court ought to have decreed the suit.
With these submissions, he prayed for allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supports the judgement
and decree and submits that there is no illegality in the judgement and
decree, however, he submits that cross objection submitted by respondent
no.1 deserves to be allowed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondent and
perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:40:47 PM
- 5 -
9. Following point for determination is arising in this appeal :-
"Whether the findings of the trial Court and consequent judgment
and decree, are sustainable in the eye of law ?"
10. Undisputedly, Jagga being maternal uncle of the defendant 5 and
plaintiffs, executed gift deed dated 21.2.1981 (Ex.P-3) only in favour of
defendant 5 Ramdas. From bare perusal of the gift deed, it cannot be said
that it was executed for the benefit of joint Hindu family of plaintiffs and
defendant 5. As such, in absence of any other documentary evidence, it
cannot be said that the plaintiffs acquired any right in the suit property on
the basis of gift deed (Ex.P-3) executed in favour of defendant 5.
11. Although while deciding the issue no.2 and 4, learned Court below
has held the sale deeds dated 01.04.1982 and 13.06.1988 to be illegal and
void, but at the same time, learned trial Court has refused to grant any
relief to the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendant 5 has not instituted
any suit or filed any claim. In my considered opinion, as the plaintiffs
have not been found to be entitled for any share in the suit property or for
entitlement of the recovery of the amount of compensation, therefore,
learned Court below, in absence of any claim made by defendant 5, has
not committed any illegality in dismissing the suit in its entirety.
12. Learned trial court has considered oral and documentary evidence
in detail and held that the sale deeds in question are illegal and void, but
in the light of findings recorded by learned trial Court and final
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:40:47 PM
- 6 -
conclusion arrived at by it, no interference is required in the impugned
judgement and decree. As such the cross objection filed on 01.02.2001 by
the respondent 1, is also dismissed, which is otherwise time barred.
13. Resultantly, first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no
order as to costs.
14. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 12/2/2022
6:40:47 PM
