Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13346 MP
Judgement Date : 17 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 17 th OF AUGUST, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 377 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMKUMAR S/O ROOOP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 48
YEARS,
2. KAUSHALYA W/O ROOP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 65
YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ARE R/O VILLAGE
JOGIBADA, POST KHAMARIA, DISTRICT SEONI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. OMPRAKASH DUBEY S/O RAMLAKHAN DUBEY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
JATACHHAPAR, TEHSIL PARASIA, DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI JAIDEEP SIRPURKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KHOOBI S/O BHIIYALAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
2. DEENA W/O LATE JIYAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3. SONU S/O LATE JIYAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
4. GOLU W/O LATE JIYAN, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
5. BULLA S/O BHAILYALAL, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
6. MEHATLAL S/O ANAKLAL, AGED ABOUT 48
YEARS,
7. SUKKU S/O ANAKLAL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
8. PUNARAM S/O ANAKLAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
ALL R/O VILLAGE PAIJANWARA, TEHSIL
Signature Not Verified
PARASIA, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
Signed by: RASHMI
RONALD VICTOR
Signing time: 8/18/2023
10:39:53 AM
2
PRADESH)
9. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
COLLECTOR, CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SATISH PATERIYA, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants 1-3 challenging the judgment & decree dated 12.01.2016 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Appeal No.22-A/2014 affirming the
judgment & decree dated 21.02.2014 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Parasia, District Chhindwara in Civil Suit No.27-A/2012, whereby respondents 1- 8/plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title, for declaring the sale deed dated 25/01/2012 null and void and permanent injunction has been decreed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1-3 submits that they have no nexus with the land Khasra No.734 owned and possessed by the plaintiffs/respondents but the defendants 1-2 being owner/bhumiswami of the land Khasra No.736 area 1.594 hectare sold it to the defendant 3 vide registered sale deed dated 25/01/2012 (Ex.P/30). He further submits that the defendants 1- 2 have succeeded the property from Gopichand and Daduram and learned Courts below have decreed the suit placing entire burden of proof on the defendants whereas the plaintiffs have failed even to discharge their initial burden to prove that the land Khasra No.736 does not belong to the defendants. He further submits that the suit cannot be decreed on the basis of weaknesses of case of the defendants even if no document/revenue entries have been filed
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 8/18/2023 10:39:53 AM
by the defendants on record. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and perused the record.
4. Upon perusal of the entire record it is clear that Gopichand and Daduram were owner/bhumiswami of the land Khasra Nos.605,606,607,608 & 609 from which, Khasra No.734 was formed having an area 11.21 acre/4.537 hectare.
5. Learned Courts below upon appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, have held that at the relevant point of time, neither Gopichand and Daduram were owners of Khasra No.736 nor it was in existence in the revenue record. Learned Courts below have also recorded findings that fraudulently the entry of Khasra No.736 had been done in the revenue record/map. With these findings, learned Courts below have held that the defendants are not owner/bhumiswami of land Survey No.736 but the land in question infact is a part of Khasra No.734 area 11.21 acre owned by the plaintiffs/respondents.
6. Upon perusal of the entire record, no document has been filed by the defendants to prove/substantiate their case of ownership of Survey No.736 or that it was formed out of land Khasra Nos.605,606,607,608 & 609.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, learned Courts below do not appear to have committed any illegality in decreeing the suit. Resultantly, having found no involvement of substantial question of law in the second appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
8. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 8/18/2023 10:39:53 AM
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE RS
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 8/18/2023 10:39:53 AM
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!