Smt. Ramlali vs Kantshree
2022 Latest Caselaw 3846 MP

                                  1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
                                 BEFORE
                    HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                         ON THE 21st OF MARCH, 2022

                     SECOND APPEAL No. 43 of 2014

        Between:-
        SMT. RAMLALI W/O LATE SHRI RAMBHAROSE ,
        AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TH:
        POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAMSHANKAR
        VILLAGE KANERA, BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....APPELLANT
        (BY SHRI N.K. GUPTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI RAVI GUPTA,
        ADVOCATE)

        AND

1.      KANTSHREE W/O LATE SHRI ASHARAM , AGED
        ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILLAGE NUNHERA, DISTRICT
        MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      CHATURANI W/O MAHAVIR PRASAD , AGED
        ABOUT    62  YEARS, R/O VILL BINDWA,TEH.
        ATER,DISTT.BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      MEENA DEVI W/O ANUP KUMAR , AGED ABOUT 45
        Y E A R S , R/O     VILL      BINDWA,TEH.
        ATER,DISTT.BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.      AVISHANT S/O SURENDRA KUMAR , AGED ABOUT
        12 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR,U/G FATHER
        SURENDRA        KUAMR      R/O       VILL
        MUKUNDPURA,DISTT.AGRA    U.P.    (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

5.      SURENDRA KUMAR S/O DEVI DAYAL , AGED
        ABOUT       45       YEARS, R/O     VILL
        MUKUNDPURA,DISTT.AGRA   U.P.    (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

6.      SMT.SWADESH TOMAR W/O SHIVSINGH TOMAR
        R/O OLD BASTI,BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.      STATE OF M.P. TH: COLLECTOR,BHIND BHIND
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
        NO.6)

      T h is appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

This appeal under Section 100 of CPC by plaintiff is directed against the confirming judgment and decree dated 13.01.2014 dismissing the appeal No.32-

A/2013 whereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 31/01/2013 passed by IVth Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhind in Civil Suit No.259-A/12.

T he facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff filed the instant suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating therein

that the land in dispute was the land of Late Rambharose and after his death plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 are the owner in possession and defendants No.1 and 2 have no right, title or interest in the land. Relief of permanent injunction was also prayed.

Defendants No.1 and 2 have filed written statements contending that the land in dispute is ancestral property left by Ramdeen succeeded by Rambharose and by them being daughter of Ramdeen. Hence, they are having 1/3 share.

Trial Court framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. After taking into consideration the evidence, it is held by the trial Court that so far as the land left by Ramdeen, plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 are having 2/3 share and share of defendants No.1 and 2 is 1/6th and the land which was purchased by Rambharose bearing survey no.2607 and 2608 is owned and possessed by plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4.

Against the judgment and decree first appeal was filed by plaintiffs/appellants that the respondents/defendants are not having any right and plea of adverse possession was also taken, First Appellate Court remanded the case to the trial Court for considering the point of adverse possession. After remand it is held by trial Court that the plaintiff along-with defendant No.3 and 4 and defendant No.1 and 2 are having equal i.e. 1/3rd share each in the land left by Ramdeen and in survey No.2607 and 2608 defendants are not having right, title or interest. It is also held that the defendants are not in possession. Against the said judgment and decree, first appeal was filed by the appellant.

The First Appellate Court has reconsidered the entire evidence on record from para 10 to 18 of the judgment and has threadbare discussed the entire evidence placed on record as regards land in dispute and found that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court while dismissing the suit.

Upon perusal of both the judgment and decree of Courts below and the

submissions advanced, the appeal is found to be devoid of any substance. In the opinion of this Court, entire gamut of the matter is in the realm of facts of the case. Both the Courts have recorded impeccable findings based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises warranting interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE Monika MONIKA SHARMA 2022.03.23 11:04:46 +05'30'