Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Prasad vs Ramsundar (Since Deceased) Through ... on 7 December, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 7 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 2068 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SHIV PRASAD S/O HANUMAN KALAR, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. UDAYNARAYAN S/O RAMMANOHAR KALAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND
TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. RAMNARAYAN @ SITARAM S/O RAMMANOHAR
KALAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND
TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI J.L. SONI - ADVOCATE)
AND
RAMSUNDAR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:-
1. PHOOLMATI JAISWAL D/O RAMSUNDAR
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. DADNI DEVI W/O JWALA PRASAD JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS,
3. BABLU JAISWAL S/O JWALA PRASAD JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
4. POONAM D/O JWALA PRASAD JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 20 YEARS,
ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUDHMANIA, P.S. &
TEHSIL SARAI, P.O. MADA DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MP)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 12/9/2023
12:23:28 PM
2
5. RAMADHAR S/O HANUMAN KALAR, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
S A M A Y L A L ( D E A D ) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES:
6. SHYAMWATI W/O SAMAYLAL KALAR VILLAGE
KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (M P)
7. ASHISH S/O SAMAYLAL KALAR VILLAGE
KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (M P)
8. MAHESH S/O SAMAYLAL KALAR VILLAGE
KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (M P)
9. NAIN KUMAR S/O SAMAYLAL KALAR VILLAGE
KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (M P)
10. RAMABHILASH S/O KAMTA PRASAD KALAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND
TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT SINGRAULI (M P)
11. MST. GEDIYA W/O HANUMAN KALAR, AGED
ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. PHOOLMATI D/O HANUMAN KALAR, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. SAMKALIYA(DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES SHOKELAL S/O HANUMAN
KALAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND
TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT SINGRAULI (M P)
14. RAMLAKHAN S/O HANUMAN KALAR, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 12/9/2023
12:23:28 PM
3
15. MANRAJUA DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES:-
BHARATLAL S/O KAMTA PRASAD KALAR, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (M P)
16. ITWARIA W/O KAMTA PRASAD KALAR, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
17. RAMKALIA DEVI D/O RAMKHELAWAN KALAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND
TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT SINGRAULI (M P)
18. MEHRAJUA DEVI W/O NANHU KALAR, AGED
ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
19. RAJARAM S/O NANHU KALAR, AGED ABOUT 30
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE
KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
20. RAMMANOHAR S/O CHHOTU KALAR, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
VILLAGE KUCHWAHI P.S. AND TEHSIL SARAI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
21. MST. JIRIYA D/O CHHOTU KALAR, AGED ABOUT
60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
VILLAGE KATAI, P.S. TEHSIL SARAI, DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
ITJARIYA DAUGHTER OF CHHOTU KALAR AND
WIFE OF LALLA PRASAD (DEAD)
22. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH THE
COLLECTOR, SINGRAULI DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 12/9/2023
12:23:28 PM
4
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants 1-3
challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2022 passed by 2nd District
Judge, Deosar, District Singrauli in regular civil appeal no.64-A/2015 affirming
the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2015 passed by Civil Judge Class-I,
Deosar, District Singrauli in civil suit no.23-A/2009 whereby learned Courts
below have decreed the suit holding the plaintiff 1 Ramsundar to be share
holder of 1/3 share in the suit lands and unregistered partition deed dtd.
24.08.2002 (Ex.D/1) and mutation order dtd. 02.11.2002 (Ex.P/1) passed
thereon to be null and void.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1-3 submits that Ramsundar
being bhumiswami of the land in question gave it to the defendants 1-3 by
executing partition deed on 24.08.2002 (Ex.P/1) and on that basis with the
consent of Ramsundar, name of defendants 1-3 was mutated. He further
submits that in fact the suit was not filed by plaintiff-Ramsundar but without
having any right in the suit property the plaintiffs 2-4 got the suit filed on behalf
of the plaintiff 1-Ramsundar who appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and
admitted execution of partition deed (Ex.D/1) and mutation of the defendants 1-
3 in the revenue record. Pointing out the admissions made by Ramsundar (PW-
1) in para 11 and 12 of his statement, he also submits that as Ramsundar has
not disputed the partition and order of mutation passed in favour of defendants
1-3, therefore, learned Courts below have committed illegality in holding the
partition deed (Ex.D/1) and order of mutation (Ex.P/1) to be illegal and null and
void. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for admission of the second
appeal
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
4. Perusal of document of partition dated 24.08.2002 (Ex.D/1) shows that by
way of this document, the land has been transferred in favour of defendants 1-3
as mentioned in the document. Undisputedly, this document is an unregistered
document. It is well settled that partition of the land can be effected only by
registered document, therefore, prima facie this document is not admissible in
evidence. Upon placing reliance on this document, the Tahsildar had passed the
order (Ex.P/1) in favour of defendants 1-3 directing mutation of their name in
place of Ramsundar. As the document of partition itself is not admissible in
evidence, therefore, in my considered opinion, learned Courts below have
rightly held the order of mutation to be illegal, null and void.
5. Vide paragraph 11 and 12 of its judgment learned trial Court has also
observed that the defendants 1-3 received photograph of Ramsundar for the
purpose of preparation of ration card, but such photograph was used by the
defendants for preparation of the partition deed. From the record, this
observation does not appear to be incorrect.
6. In view of the aforesaid scenario, this Court does not find any infirmity or
illegality in the judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below.
7. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 rule 11 CPC.
However, no order as to the costs.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
