Mangalsingh Chouhan vs Smt. Kubja Bai
2023 Latest Caselaw 12222 MP

                                                                 1




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT JABALPUR
                                               FIRST APPEAL No.393 of 2017
                            (SHAMBHU BARMAN URF GUDDU BARMAN Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


                          Dated : 01-08-2023

                                Shri Suyash Tripathi - Advocate for the appellants.
                                Shri K.K. Pandey - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Ku. K.C.V. Rao - Panel Lawyer for the State-respondent No.2.

Heard on I.A. No.7280/2017, which is an application for stay of operation of judgment and decree dated 19.4.2015 passed in Civil Suit No.RCSA-300033/16 by the Third Additional District Judge, Raisen, Camp Court, Bareli, District-Raisen and I.A. No.13987/2017, which is an application for vacating of stay order dated 25.5.2017.

Learned counsel for the appellants prays to restrain respondent no.1 from alienating the suit property i.e. Khasra No.18, admeasuring 47.73 acres of land situated at Village-Digwada District- Raisen, out of which two acres of land was given to respondent no.1 for her livelihood.

Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has submitted that appellants have occupied the entire land and getting the whole income arising from the land and on other hand, the respondent is the wife of deceased Pohap Singh, who is now hand to mouth after death of her husband. Hence prays for vacating the stay order passed on 25.05.2017.

During arguments, learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants are ready to give the possession of land as directed in impugned judgment and decree with a condition that respondent no.1 shall not alienate the land till final disposal of the appeal.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 03-Aug-23 11:09:25 AM

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that if appellants deliver the possession of 5 acre land to the respondent no.1 as mentioned in the impugned decree then he has no objection to pass an order for restraining to alienation of the suit property till the final disposal of the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants also agreed for the same. Hence, it is ordered that Respondent no.1 shall not alienate any part of the suit property bearing Kh. No. 18 admeasuring 4.79 hectare situated at Village-Digwada District- Raisen and it is also directed to the appellants that they will deliver 5 acre land of suit property bearing Kh. No. 18 admeasuring 4.79 hectare situated at Village-Digwada District- Raisen within a period of 15 days from today, otherwise Respondent no.1 is free to execute the relief nos.2, 3 and 4 of the impugned decree.

In the light of the order passed above, learned counsel for respondent no.1 does not want to press I.A. No.2498/2021. It is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

Appellants are directed to file compliance report before the next date of hearing regarding delivery of land to respondent No.1 as mentioned above.

List the case for compliance report after three weeks i.e. week commencing 28.08.2023.

Accordingly, I.A. Nos.7280/2017, 13987/2017 and 2498/2021 stand disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)) JUDGE ps

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 03-Aug-23 11:09:25 AM