Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Azra Ansari vs Amt. Chandan Bai on 12 April, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 12 th OF APRIL, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 1737 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT. AZRA ANSARI W/O LATE MOHAMMAD HANEEF,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O BANIYATOLA KOTMA
POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL KOTMA DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. GHUNCHA RASOOL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. CHANDAN BAI W/O LATE DAYARAM
BARGAHI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O PURANI
KOTMA TEHSIL KOTMA DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR, ANUPPUR DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ARUN SINGH S/O LATE DAYARAM SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O KOTMA, POLICE STATION
AND TEHSIL KOTMA, DISTRICT ANUPPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. ANITA SINGH W/O LATE RAJESH SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O KOTMA, TEHSIL
KOTMA, DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. MEENA SINGH D/O LATE DAYARAM SINGH W/O
SURENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O
KOTMA, POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL KOTMA,
DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MUNNI SINGH D/O LATE DAYARAM SINGH W/O
MAHESH SINGH R/O KOTMA, PRESENTLY R/O
RASMOHNI, POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL
JAITPUR, DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 4/13/2023
6:14:47 PM
2
PRADESH)
7. BABITA SINGH D/O LATE DAYARAM SINGH W/O
R A J K U M A R R/O KOTMA, PRESENTLY R/O
PIPRAYAN, POLICE STATION BAGHWAR,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. GUDDI SINGH D/O LATE DAYARAM SINGH W/O
RAJPAL SINGH R/O KOTMA, PRESENTLY R/O
PIPRAYAN, POLICE STATION BAGHWAR,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. RENU SINGH D/O LATE DAYARAM SINGH W/O
VIRENDRA SINGH R/O RASMOHNI, POLICE
STATION AND TEHSIL JAITPUR DISTRICT
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. NEELAM SINGH D/O LATE DAYARAM SINGH W/O
SATENDRA SINGH R/O CHIRMIRI, POLICE
STATION CHIRMIR, DISTRICT KORIYA
(CHHATTISGARH)
11. JYOTI SINGH D/O LATE DAYARAM SINGH W/O
VINEET SINGH R/O KOTMA, PRESENTLY R/O
REWA, POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL REWA,
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. SHAILENDRA SINGH S/O LATE LAXMI SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O PURANI BASTI WARD
NO.6, POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL KOTMA,
DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. BESAHU SINGH S/O LATE GAYADEEN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O KOTMA, WARD NO.
5, POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL KOTMA,
DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. AMRENDRA SINGH S/O LATE SURENDRA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O KOTMA, PURANI
BASTI WARD NO. 5, POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL
KOTMA, DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
15. ARVIND SINGH S/O LATE SURENDRA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O KOTMA, PURANI
BASTI WARD NO. 5, POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL
KOTMA, DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
16. NAGENDRA SINGH S/O LATE SURENDRA SINGH,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 4/13/2023
6:14:47 PM
3
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O KOTMA, PURANI
BASTI WARD NO. 5, POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL
KOTMA, DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
17. MANJU SINGH D/O LATE SURENDRA SINGH W/O
SATENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O
BYOHARI, POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL
BYOHARI, DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
18. RAJENDRA SINGH S/O RAMADHAR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O PURANI BASTI, WARD NO.5,
POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL KOTMA, DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA RAJPUT PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
2/STATE ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been filed by defendant 1 Smt. Azra Ansari
challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2022 passed by 1st District
Judge, Kotma, District Annupur in Civil Appeal No.204/2019 (8/2019) affirming
the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2019 passed by Additional Judge to the
Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Kotma, District Annupur in Civil Suit No.126-
A/2018 (instituted on 11.01.2012) whereby learned Courts below have decreed
the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent 1 for declaration of title, permanent
injunction as well as for restoration of possession and at the same time has
dismissed the counter claim dated 15.05.2018 filed by the defendant 1/appellant
for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 04.04.2001 (Ex D/1) and
permanent injunction.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant 1 submits that learned
Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit and further erred in dismissing the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 4/13/2023
6:14:47 PM
counter claim filed for specific performance as well as for protection of
possession by way of decree of permanent injunction.
3. She submits that although the plaintiff is wife of Dayaram but he along
with his brother Surendra Singh executed an agreement on 04.04.2001 (Ex.D/1)
in respect of a piece of land area 2400 sq.ft. for consideration of Rs.1,04,000/-
after receiving an amount of Rs.70,000/- in advance and remaining amount of
Rs.34,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed.
4. She also submits that because the permission for sale deed was to be
taken from Collector by vendors themselves, therefore, the sale deed could not
be executed within time. However, she has failed to point out any
document/notice in this regard given by defendant-1, if any, to Dayaram or
Surendra Singh.
5. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays for admission
of this appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
7. Undisputedly, Dayaram and Surendra Singh were owner of the
disputed land/plot and by way of agreement in question (Ex.D/1) plot
admeasuring 2400 sqft is said to had been agreed to sell by Dayaram and
Surendra Singh in favour of the defendant 1- Smt. Azra Ansari, but in the entire
agreement there is no time fixed for execution of sale deed, therefore, for the
purpose of execution of sale deed limitation had started just after execution of
agreement on 04.04.2001. There is no documentary evidence available on
record on behalf of the defendant 1 showing that she had ever tried to get
executed sale deed in her favour from Dayaram and Surendra Singh or from the
legal heirs of Dayaram. As such the counter claim filed on 15.05.2018 in respect
of agreement of sale dated 04.04.2001 is clearly barred by limitation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 4/13/2023
6:14:47 PM
8. Undisputedly the plaintiff is wife of owner Dayaram, therefore, she
has been held to owner and entitled for decree of possession of suit plot.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in my considered opinion,
learned Courts below have not committed any illegality in decreeing the suit and
in dismissing the counter claim.
10. Resultantly, this second appeal having no involvement of substantial
question of law fails and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule
11 of CPC.
11. Interim application(s) if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 4/13/2023
6:14:47 PM
