Madhya Pradesh High Court
Himmatsingh vs Laadsingh on 21 August, 2023
Author: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 21 st OF AUGUST, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 2878 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
HIMMATSINGH S/O SHRI PANNALAL, AGED ABOUT 43
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE
FARAD, TEHSIL KALAPIPAL, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI CHANDRAKANT VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. LAADSINGH S/O SUKHRAM, AGED ABOUT 46
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O:
VILLAGE FARAD, TEHSIL KALAPIPAL DISTRICT
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VISHNU S/O RAGHUVEERSINGH, AGED ABOUT 41
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST , R/O:
VILLAGE FARAD, TEHSIL KALAPIPAL, DISTRICT
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, DISTRICT
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KRISHNABAI S/O LATE PRAHALADSINGH, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST, R/O: VILLAGE FARAD, TEHSIL
KALAPIPAL, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. MANOHAR S/O PRAHALADSINGH, AGED ABOUT
41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST , R/O:
VILLAGE FARAD, TAHSIL KALAPIPAL, DISTRICT
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SANTOSHBAI D/O PRAHALADSINGH, AGED
ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST, R/O: VILLAGE PALKHEDI,
TEHSIL ICHCHHAWAR, DISTRICT SEHORE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 23-08-2023
11:06:57
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the question of admission.
2. This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the
plaintiff/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2022
passed in R.C.A. No.500041/2016 by the IInd District Judge, Shujalpur, District
Shajapur (M.P.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2016 passed in
Civil Suit No.76-A/2014 by the Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil
Judge, Class-II, Shujalpur, District Shajapur whereby his claim for declaration
that the sale-deed dated 27.11.2007 is null and void, for possession, mense
profits and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
3. As per the plaintiff, he is the owner of total 8.428 hectare of land which
is jointly owned by him alongwith the other co-owners. No partition of the lands
has been effected between the co-owners. Without affecting a partition,
Prahalad Singh, predecessor in interest of defendants 4 to 6 has executed a
sale-deed on 27.11.2007 with respect to 0.094 hectare of Survey No.356/2 total
area 0.460 hectare in favour of defendant No.1 for a consideration of
Rs.19,500/-. The said sale-deed is null and void since the beginning. Defendants
1 and 2 are attempting to forcibly take possession of land purchased by them.
On such contentions, claim was instituted by the plaintiff for declaration that the
sale-deed dated 27.11.2007 executed by Prahalad Singh in favour of defendant
No.1 is null and void, for possession of the land sold there under, for mense
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 23-08-2023
11:06:57
profits and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
with his possession over the suit land.
4. The claim was contested by defendants 1 and 2 by filing their written
statement to the same. The claim has been dismissed by both the Courts below
primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time since plaintiff had the
knowledge of sale-deed dated 27.11.2007 in the year 2007 itself whereas he has
instituted the claim on 26.09.2014. It has also been observed that the contention
as raised by plaintiff as regards the suit land being land of co-ownership has not
been established from the record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Courts below
have erred in dismissing the claim of plaintiff as barred by time. Though, the
plaintiff had stated in his deposition that he had knowledge of sale-deed in the
year 2007 but did not state that it is then only that for the first time he had
acquired knowledge of the sale-deed. In fact the plaintiff acquired such
knowledge only upon obtaining the certified copy of sale-deed on 01.07.2014.
The suit hence instituted by him was well within time. It has also been submitted
that plaintiff's claim is not only for declaration that the sale-deed is null and void
but is also for possession of the suit land the period of limitation for which is 12
years hence the claim could not have been dismissed as barred by time.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the
record.
7. The primary relief claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint was for
declaration that the sale-deed dated 27.11.2007 executed by Prahalad Singh in
favour of defendant No.1 is null and void. The other reliefs claimed for in the
plaint are consequential thereto and could be granted in favour of plaintiff only
if the primary relief was granted to him. In paragraph No.9 of his cross-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 23-08-2023
11:06:57
examination, the plaintiff has specifically stated that he became aware of the
sale-deed in the year 2007 itself. The said statement, nowhere reflects that he
acquired knowledge on any other date. A reasonable and logical deduction to
be drawn from the said statement is that he acquired knowledge of the sale-deed
in the year 2007 itself. The suit for its cancellation has been instituted on
26.09.2014. As per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of
limitation for claiming such a relief is three years from the date of acquiring
knowledge of the document. Since plaintiff had acquired knowledge of sale-
deed in the year 2007 itself, the suit ought to have been instituted by him within
a period of three years therefrom. The same instituted by him in the year 2014 is
hence apparently barred by time.
8. The reliefs of possession, mense profits and permanent injunction
which have been claimed by plaintiff are all consequential reliefs and could be
granted in his favour only if he would have been granted the relief of declaration
of sale-deed being null and void. In absence of grant of such relief, the
aforesaid reliefs could not be granted to the plaintiff. Since plaintiff's claim for
declaration that the sale-deed is null and void has itself been found to be barred
by time, the question of granting relief of possession etc. to him does not arise
at all. Thus, the question as to whether plaintiff's claim for relief of possession
of the suit land is within time pales into insignificance.
9. Thus in view of the aforesaid, I do not find any error having been
committed by the Courts below in dismissing the claim of plaintiff. The findings
and the reasonings of the Courts below are perfectly just and legal and are
based upon the material available on record. No fault can be found with the
same. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 23-08-2023
11:06:57
which is consequently dismissed in limini.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 23-08-2023
11:06:57
