Ramlal Patel vs Ajay Kumar Gupta
2022 Latest Caselaw 16964 MP

                                                            1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                             ON THE 20 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                              SECOND APPEAL No. 284 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAMLAL PATEL S/O RAMKRIPAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT
                           66   YEARS, OCCUPATION:    AGRICULTURE      R/O
                           MADHAUGANJ, TEH, AJAIGARH, DISTT. PANNA, M.P

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI RAJMANI SINGROL )

                           AND
                           1.    AJAY KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE SHRI VRINDAVAN
                                 GUPTA,  AGED    ABOUT      50   YEARS, R/O
                                 MADHAUGANJ, TEH, AJAIGARH, DISTT. PANNA
                                 M.P

                           2.    SMT. KAVITA GUPTA D/O MUNNULAL GUPTA,
                                 AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O MADHAUGANJ, TEH,
                                 AJAIGARH, DISTT. PANNA, M.P

                           3.    STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR DISTT. PANNA
                                 M.P

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI PRABHAKAR SINGH - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS 1 - 2
                           AND SHRI RAMJI PANDEY, PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE -
                           RESPONDENT 3 )

                                 This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                             ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant 1 Ramlal Patel, challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2020 passed by District Judge, Panna in regular civil appeal no.05/2020, affirming the judgment and decree

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 12/21/2022 10:38:42 AM

dated 20.12.2019 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Panna, in civil suit no.04-A/2018 whereby, learned trial Court decreed the suit for declaration of title, restoration of possession and permanent injunction with regard to land Khasra no.7/3 area 0.110 hectare situated in village Madhoganj, Tahsil Ajaygarh, District Panna.

2. Upon filing the suit by the respondents 1-2/plaintiffs for the aforesaid relief, learned Courts below have after due consideration of the evidence and after considering the case of defendant with regard to his ownership over the land Khasra no.8/1, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant 1 submits that the land

of his ownership bearing Khasra no.8/1 is not in dispute but in the garb of ownership of Khasra no.7/3, the plaintiffs want to encroach upon the land recorded in the name of State bearing Khasra no.7/1. Disputing the demarcation report available on record, he submits that the same is not correct and the land in question is the land of the way. Accordingly, he submits that second appeal deserves to be admitted for final hearing.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs as well as the State supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below. By showing the certified copies of the execution case, learned counsel for the respondents 1-2/plaintiffs, submits that the plaintiffs have received possession of the land in question. Learned counsel appearing for the State also submits that the penalty was also imposed upon the appellant/defendant 1 for making encroachment over the land in question.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. After holding trial, learned Courts below have held the plaintiffs to be Bhoomiswami of the land Khasra no.7/3 and on the basis of oral and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 12/21/2022 10:38:42 AM

documentary evidence available on record have passed the decree of restoration of possession over an area 0.110 hectare of the land Khasra no.7/3.

7. In view of admitted ownership of the plaintiffs over the land Khasra no.7/3 and after perusal of the judgment and decree of the courts below and in view of the record available before this Court, no illegality or perversity is found in the impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below.

8. As such this appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 rule 11 CPC. However, no order as to the costs.

9. Interim application(s), if any shall stand disposed off.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE pb

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 12/21/2022 10:38:42 AM