Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Vishnu Gupta vs Ramlali W.O Narendra Tiwari ... on 3 March, 2022
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 3rd OF MARCH, 2022
SECOND APPEAL No. 3435 of 2019
Between:-
RAM VISHNU GUPTA S/O LATE RAMAILAL, AGED
ABOUT 82 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LAWYER R/O
WARD NO. 11, SHAHDOL, DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. RAMLALI W/O NARENDRA TIWARI (SINCE DEAD)
THROUGH LRS
(a) YOGENDRA TIWARI S/O NARENDRA TIWARI
R/O VILLAGE HARRI THANA SHAHDOL TEHSIL
SOHAGPUR, DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
(b) GEETA DEVI D/O RAMLALI R/O VICHARPUR
THANA SHAHDOL, DISTT. SHAHDOL (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NEVANDRAM S/O KRISHNAMAL SINDHI AGED
ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O WARD NO. 10 INFRONT OF
MAHARANI LAXMI BAI SCHOOL, MAIN ROAD
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. VINOD KUMAR S/O GANGADEEN GUPTA AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O BEOHARI DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ANIL KUMAR S/O GANGADEEN GUPTA , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O BEOHARI DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SMT. SANJANA W/O RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA R/O
VANSUKLI CHOURAHA KE PASS INFRONT OF
AMAR HOTEL BEOHARI TAHSIL BEOHARI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. STATE OF MP THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. DROPATI TIWARI W/O BRAJENDRA KUMAR
TIWARI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O WARD NO. 11
THANA SHAHDOL, TAHSIL SOHAGPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
8. SHANTIBAI TIWARI @ MUNNI BAI W/O
RAMKUMAR TIWARI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O
Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD VILLAGE MUHDA THANA JETHARI TAHSIL
VICTOR
Date: 2022.03.07 10:16:49 IST JETHARI, DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
2
PRADESH)
9. SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA S/O RAMMAN MISHRA
R/O WARD NO. 12 TAHSIL SOHAGPUR DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
T h is appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The appellant/plaintiff has filed the present second appeal challenging the
judgment and decree dated 31/08/2019 passed by Third Additional District Judge,
Shahdol in RCA No.27/2017 confirming the judgment and decree dated
31/03/2017 passed by Third Additional Civil Judge Class-I, Shahdol to the Court
of First Civil Judge Class-I, Shahdol in civil suit No.30A/2014 in the suit for
declaration of title, for declaring bhumiswami/possession holder and for permanent
injunction filed with respect to the disputed property. Later on, sought relief for
declaring certain sale deeds null and void executed in favour of the defendants and
also prayed that in case during pendency of suit, the defendants take possession
then the plaintiff be granted possession also on the land area 3475 sq.ft. of survey
No.685.
2. Originally, the plaintiff instituted suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction claiming himself to be in possession on the basis of two letters of the
year 1983 (Ex.P/1 & P/2) whereby the plaintiff claimed that the owner of the
property namely Rameshwar had transferred title and possession of the disputed
property to him after receiving entire consideration and claimed that since thereafter
he is in possession of the property. It is also alleged that because in presence of
said documents Rameshwar had no right, therefore, after his death, her daughter
Ramlali (defendant No.1) had no right to execute the sale deed. Accordingly, the
plaintiff alleged that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1/Ramlali and
subsequent sale deeds executed by other defendants are not valid or binding on the
plaintiff. By amending the plaint vide Para 3(c), the plaintiff further alleged that he
Signature Not Verified
SAN being in possession of the suit land w.e.f. June 1982 in the knowledge of
Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD
VICTOR
Rameshwar Prasad and in the knowledge of Ramlali (defendant no.1), therefore,
Date: 2022.03.07 10:16:49 IST
after June 1984, the plaintiff has acquired title against Rameshwar Prasad and
Ramlali (defendant No.1) on the basis of adverse possession and w.e.f.
05/05/1983, the plaintiff is in possession of the land as owner in the knowledge of
defendant No.2, hence after 05/05/1995, the plaintiff had acquired bhumiswami
rights on the basis of adverse possession.
3. The defendants appeared and contested the suit claiming themselves to be
owner/bhumiswami and in possession and contended that the plaintiff is neither
owner nor in possession and he has filed the suit on the basis of forged and
fabricated documents.
4. Upon the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as
six issues and recorded evidence of the parties. The learned trial Court has
categorically held that the plaintiff has not acquired any title on the basis of adverse
possession and he is not in possession of the land, therefore, there is no question
of granting permanent injunction. The learned trial Court also held that, the sale
deeds in question are not null and void and further held that the plaintiff is not
entitled for restoration of possession. Upon appeal, learned Appellate Court has
confirmed the judgment and decree passed by trial Court and also dismissed the
application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 as well as under Order 6
Rule 17 of the CPC.
5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned both the Courts have
not decided the issue/question with regard to adverse possession in real
perspective and erred in disbelieving the letters (Ex.P/1 & P/2) written by the
original owner Rameshwar whereby land was granted to the plaintiff and pressed
the second appeal on the proposed substantial question of law No.6(b) & (d) and
prayed that the appeal deserves to be admitted.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
7. It is apparent that the plaintiff originally based his suit on the basis of two
letters allegedly written by Rameshwar in the year 1983 (Ex.P/1 & P/2) and claimed
himself to be owner and in possession of the land and he never tried to get
Signature Not Verified
executed sale deed inspite of requests made by Rameshwar by way of these
SAN
Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD
letters. Except these two letters, there is no other document of title in favour of the
VICTOR
Date: 2022.03.07 10:16:49 IST
plaintiff to prove ownership on the disputed property. It is well settled that title
passes only upon execution and registration of sale deed. Learned Courts below
have concurrently held that the letters (Ex.P/1 & P/2) do not confer any right on
the plaintiff, therefore, the learned Courts have rightly ignored the said letters
(Ex.P/1 & P/2) for the purpose of conferring rights on the plaintiff.
8. In the present second appeal, counsel for the appellant mainly pressed the
question of adverse possession and contended that he is in possession of the suit
property in pursuance of letters (Ex.P/1 & P/2) and the defendant never tried to
take possession from the plaintiff, therefore, he has acquired and perfected title by
adverse possession and contended that the letters (Ex.P/1 & P/2) should be
considered for collateral purpose to prove nature of possession over the disputed
property.
9. It is apparent that the plaintiff in the suit instituted on 02/09/2013
incorporated amendment first time vide order dated 31/01/2015 with regard to
adverse possession and prior to this amendment, the plaintiff was claiming himself
to be owner and in possession of the land on the basis of letters (Ex.P/1 & P/2).
Meaning thereby the plaintiff never claimed himself to be in adverse possession
prior to proposing the amendment.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narasamma and others Vs. A.
Krishnappa (dead) through Legal Representatives reported in (2020) 15 SCC
218 has held as under:
33. In Karnataka Board of Wakf case, it has been clearly set out
that a plaintiff filing a title over the property must specifically
plead it. When such a plea of adverse possession is projected, it
is inherent in the nature of it that someone else is the owner of
the property. In that context, it was observed in Para 12 that
"... The pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually
inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the
former is renounced."
11. Learned Courts below after making critical analysis have held that the
plaintiff is neither in possession nor perfected title by way of adverse possession.
12. In view of the aforesaid and in view of the recent pronouncement of
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narasamma (supra), no substantial
Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD
VICTOR
Date: 2022.03.07 10:16:49 IST question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal which is
hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule 11 of CPC. No order as to cost.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
RS
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD
VICTOR
Date: 2022.03.07 10:16:49 IST
