Madhya Pradesh High Court
Salaamuddin vs Shyamlal on 25 August, 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 25 th OF AUGUST, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 815 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SALAAMUDDIN S/O RAMEEZUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 57
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O DUSSHERA
MAIDAN ROAD KASBA AASTHA TEHSIL AASTHA
DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR NAVERIYA-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHYAMLAL S/O SHRI HARINARAYAN, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O PEETH KE PEECHE,
PATWARI COLONY ALIPUR AASTHA TEHSIL
AASTHA DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O SHRI HARINARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O PEETH KE PEECHE
PATWARI COLONY ALIPUR AASTHA TEHSIL
AASTHA DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUNIL KUMAR S/O SHRI HARINARAYAN, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O PEETH KE PEECHE
PATWARI COLONY ALIPUR AASTHA TEHSIL
AASTHA DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BHAGWATIBAI W/O HARINARAYAN, AGED
ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O PEETH KE PEECHE
PATWARI COLONY ALIPUR AASTHA TEHSIL
AASTHA DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR SEHORE DISTRICT SEHORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VIJAY PADEY-PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT 5/STATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 8/26/2023
11:55:47 AM
2
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 02.03.2023 passed by 2nd District
Judge, Ashta, District Sehore, in civil appeal No.14-A/2019 affirming the
judgment and decree dtd. 28.08.2019 passed by 2nd Additional Judge to the
court of Civil Judge Class-I, Ashta, District Sehore in RCSA No.400026/2014,
whereby plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in
respect of land survey No.142/1 area 2.845 hectare situated in village Patariya
Goyal, Tahsil Ashta, District Sehore, was dismissed by learned trial court,
which in appeal has been modified by granting limited relief of permanent
injunction.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is
in possession of the land on the basis of sale agreement dtd. 26.02.1998 (Ex.
P/11) executed by husband and father of the defendants 1-4, namely
Harinarayan. He submits that although on the date of agreement dtd. 26.02.1998
only an amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid, but later on the entire amount of sale
consideration mentioned in the agreement dtd. 26.02.1998 was paid, which has
been mentioned on the overleaf of the agreement dtd. 26.02.1998. He further
submits that by executing another document of sale dtd. 27.01.2000 (Ex. P/12)
the vendor Harinarayan Sharma had acknowledged the receipt of sale
consideration and delivery of possession over the land as well as sale of the
land, therefore, after payment of requisite stamp duty under the orders of
Collector of Stamp, Distt. Sehore the plaintiff has acquired title over the land in
question. He submits that although the plaintiff had taken the plea of adverse
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 8/26/2023
11:55:47 AM
possession but now he is leaving such plea. Accordingly, he submits that the
plaintiff being owner and in possession of the suit land on the basis of
documents (Ex. P/11 and P/12) is entitled for relief in his favour as claimed in
the plaint, but the learned courts below have dismissed the suit illegally. With
the aforesaid submissions, he prays for admitting the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the
record.
4. Title of Harinarayan, husband and father of the defendants 1-4, over
the disputed land is not in dispute. The plaintiff claims himself to be owner and
in possession of the land in question firstly on the basis of sale agreement dtd.
26.02.1998 (Ex. P/11) and then on the basis of document of confirmation of
sale dtd. 27.01.2000 (Ex. P/12). Although under the orders of Collector of
Stamp, the plaintiff has paid requisite stamp duty, but still both the documents
(Ex.p/11 and P/12) are unregistered.
5. In the case of Natthu Khan vs. Komal and Others 2010 (II) MPWN
4, Division Bench of this Court has held as under :
"7.......If the document is a complete sale and it is in relation to
tangible immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- then a document
unless it is registered would not be admissible in evidence irrespective of
the fact that it is on proper stamp or not."
6. In the case of Har Narain (Dead) By LRs vs. Mam Chand (Dead) By
LRs (2010) 13 SCC 128 and Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Haryana and Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
title on the immovable property passes only after execution and registration of
the sale deed.
7. Learned courts below while deciding the issue no.1 have held that on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 8/26/2023
11:55:47 AM
the one hand the plaintiff is taking plea of ownership and on the other hand he
has taken plea of adverse possession and both the pleas being self destructive
cannot be taken simultaneously, however the plaintiff has failed to prove his
adverse possession over the land in question and the suit is also barred by
limitation.
8. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned first appellate court by
reversing the findings on the question of possession, has protected possession
of the appellant/plaintiff.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion in my considered opinion no
illegality appears to have been committed by learned Courts below in passing
the impugned judgment and decree.
10. Resultantly there being no substantial question of law involved in the
present second appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
11. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 8/26/2023
11:55:47 AM
