Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxmi Soni vs Krishnapal Singh on 13 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 13 th OF APRIL, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 2978 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
LAXMI SONI S/O SHRI RAMSANJEEVAN SONI, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O
VILLAGE THATHORA, TEHSIL KOTAR, DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANAND SINGH THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KRISHNAPAL SINGH S/O SHRI TEJBHAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST
2. VEERBHAN SINGH S/O SHRI TEJBHAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST
3. CHAKRADHAR SINGH S/O SHRI TEJBHAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST
4. VIRENDRA BAHADUR SINGH S/O SHRI TEJBHAN
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST
RESPONDENTS 1-4 ARE R/O VILLAGE THATHORA,
TEHSIL KOTAR, DISTRICT SATNA (M.P.) AND ARE
DULY REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI KRISHNAPAL
SINGH S/O SHRI TEJBHAN SINGH
5. SMT. MANVATI W/O SHRI TEJBHAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
VILLAGE THATHORA, TEHSIL KOTAR, DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RAMSHRIOMANI ALIAS RAM SHRIOMANI SONI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 4/19/2023
5:29:26 PM
2
(DEAD) THROUGH THEIR LEGAL HEIRS
6(a) MS. SUSHEELA W/O LATE RAMSHIROMANI SONI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
6(b) PUSHPENDRA SONI S/O LATE SHRI
RAMSHIROMANI SONI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
6(c) RAJEEV LOCHAN SONI S/O LATE SHRI
RAMSHIROMANI SONI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 6(a) TO 6(c) ARE R/O VILLAGE
GOLHATA, TEHSIL KOTAR, DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6(iii) RAMMANOHAR SONI S/O LATE SHRI RAMGOPAL
SONI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BHARHUT NAGAR, TEHSIL RAGHURAJ NAGR,
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6(iv) MADAN SONI S/O LATE SHRI RAMGOPAL SONI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O HANUMAN NAGAR,
NAI BASTI, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6(v) MOHAN SONI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LEGAL
HEIRS
(i) SUSHEELA SONI W/O LATE SHRI MOHAN SONI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
(ii) AJAY SONI S/O LATE SHRI MOHAN SONI, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS,
(iii) VIJAY SONI S/O LATE SHRI MOHAN SONI, AGED
ABOUT 19 YEARS,
(iv) ABHAY SONI S/O LATE SHRI MOHAN SONI, AGED
ABOUT 18 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 6(i) TO 6(iv) ARE ALL R/O
HANUMAN NAGAR, NAI BASTI, DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6(vi) MURARI SONI S/O LATE SHRI MOHAN SONI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
6(vii) SHANKAR SONI S/O LATE SHRI MOHAN SONI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
6(viii) SANTU SONI ALIAS SHATRUGHAN SONI S/O LATE
SHRI MOHAN SONI
RESPONDENTS 6(vi) TO 6(viii) ARE R/O HANUMAN
NAGAR, NAI BASTI, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 4/19/2023
5:29:26 PM
3
PRADESH)
7. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
C O L L E C T O R DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. RAVIBHAN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI RAMBHAN
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
9. DHANRAJ SINGH S/O LATE SHRI RAMBHAN
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
10. AVSHER SINGH S/O LATE SHRI GORELAL SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
11. ANAND SINGH S/O LATE SHRI RAJARAM SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
12. ANIL SINGH S/O LATE SHRI RAJARAM SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 8 TO 12 ARE R/O HANUMAN
NAGAR, NAI BASTI, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI YADVENDRA DWIVEDI, PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
7/STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant 2-Laxmi Soni,
challenging the judgment and decree dated 17/11/2022 passed by 4th District
Judge, Satna in Civil Appeal No.93/2015, affirming the judgment and decree
dated 03/09/2013 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Satna in Civil Suit No.75-
A/2006, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents 1-5 for declaration of
title, permanent injunction and for declaring the orders dated 19/04/2004 and
17/08/2005 passed by Tahsildar and Additional Collector void, in respect of
agricultural land Khasra No.6/1(ka) area 1.76 acre situated in Mauja Thathora,
Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna, has been decreed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant 2 submits that the land
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 4/19/2023
5:29:26 PM
owned and possessed by the defendant 2 bearing khasra No.6/1(kha)
admeasuring 1.77 acre is in two parts, one part of which is situated in between
the khasra No.6/2 and 6/1(ka) and another part admeasuring 0.39 acre is
situated in the east of the land of the plaintiffs bearing khasra no. 6/1(ka), i.e.
adjacent to the land of the plaintiffs. He further submits that learned both the
Courts below have without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the
matter in the light of documents of demarcation proceedings available on
record, erred in holding the plaintiffs to be owner/bhumiswami of the land
khasra No.6/1(ka). With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for admission of
the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant 2 and perused the
record.
4. Perusal of the record shows that there were three brothers namely
Tejbhan Singh, Rambhan Singh and Gorelal, who were owners of the land
khasra no.6 and upon division they each received an area about 1.78 acre of the
land. One of the brothers namely Gorelal vide registered sale deed dated
29/06/1998 (Ex.P/2) sold his part of the land area 1.77 acre of Khasra
No.6/1(kha) to the defendant 2- Laxmi Soni mentioning specifically the four
boundaries in the sale deed.
5. If the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed (Ex.P/2) are taken into
consideration in the light of plaint map, then the land purchased by defendant 2-
Laxmi Soni comes in the middle of the land Khasra No.6/2 (owned by
Ramgopal Soni-defendant 1) and 6/1(ka) (owned by the plaintiffs).
6. It is well settled that the purchaser is bound by the contents of the sale
deed including its boundaries within which he purchased the land, until and
unless the sale deed is amended. As such in my considered opinion, the
appellant/defendant 2 cannot claim the land beyond the boundaries mentioned in
the sale deed, by which he has purchased the land khasra no. 6/1(kha).
7. However, it is hereby observed that if the defendant 2 has not been
given possession of the entire land mentioned in the sale deed dated 29/06/1998
(Ex.P/2), he may file suit against the purchaser, for recovery of the sale amount,
in proportion to the area of land, which he has not received.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 4/19/2023
5:29:26 PM
8. Accordingly, finding no substantial question of law involved in the
second appeal, it fails and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule 11
CPC.
9. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
RS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 4/19/2023
5:29:26 PM
