Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Saket vs Bhoora Saket on 12 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 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 110 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMESH SAKET S/O LATE SHRI PIYARE SAKET,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILL GANJAS TAH RAM
NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAM DAS SAKET S/O LATE SHRI PIYARE SAKET,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, VILL. GANJAS, TAH. RAM
NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. BHAGMANIYA D/O LATE SHRI PIYARE
SAKET, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, VILL. HARRAI,
TAH. RAM NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. RAKHKHI BAI D/O LATE SHRI PIYARE
SAKET, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILL. BADA
ITAMA, TAH. RAM NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI M.P. RAJAK, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BHOORA SAKET S/O LATE SHRI JHALLA SAKET,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, VILL GANJAS TAH RAM
NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SAUKHI LAL SAKET S/O LATE SHRI JHALLA
SAKET, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, VILL. GANJAS,
TAH. RAM NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. JAMUNI BAI W/O LATE SHRI JHALLA
SAKET, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILL. GANJAS,
TAH. RAM NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. TIJIYA D/O LATE SHRI DULARE SAKET,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VILL. BADWAR, TAH.
RAM NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 12/13/2023
10:33:41 AM
2
5. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR SATNA, DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP DWIVEDI, 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
challenging the judgment & decree dtd. 19.10.2011 passed by Additional
District Judge, Amarpatan, District Satna in Civil Appeal No. 57A/2009
affirming the judgment & decree dtd. 05.11.2009 passed by 2nd Civil Judge
Class-II, Amarpatan, District Satna in Civil Suit No.520A/2006 whereby
respondents/plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in
respect of the land Khasra No.394 area 0.30 acre situated in Mauja Ganjas has
been decreed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that although the
land in question belonged to plaintiffs' grandfather Mathura but, he in his
lifetime gave it to defendants' ancestor Bahri and since thereafter, the name of
defendants' ancestor and of defendants is recorded and the defendants are in
possession of the land after having raised construction of house on some area
of the land. He submits that learned Courts below have not given due weightage
to the revenue entries of the favour of the defendants and their ancestor, in view
of which, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is also barred by limitation. With these
submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and perused the
record.
4. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence as well as admissions
of the defendants, Courts below have come to conclusion that the plaintiffs are
bhoomiswami and in possession of the land Khasra no.394 area 0.30 acre and
the name of defendants' ancestor was recorded wrongly in the revenue papers
that too without there being any order passed by some competent authority.
5. There is an order dt. 31.10.2006 (Ex. P/7) available on record, which shows
that an application under Section 250 of the MP Land Revenue Code was filed
by defendants Ramesh and Ramdas in respect of the suit land Khasra No.394
area 0.30 acre, which was dismissed by Tahsildar and thereafter
defendants/appellants did not challenge the order dtd. 31.10.2006, resultantly
the same had attained finality.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon perusal of the entire record,
this Court does not find any illegality in the judgment & decree passed by
learned Courts below.
7. As such, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second appeal
fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
