Narendra vs Omprakash
2023 Latest Caselaw 21188 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Narendra vs Omprakash on 13 December, 2023

Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal

Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal

                                1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT I N D O R E
                           BEFORE
  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL

            ON THE 13th OF DECEMBER, 2023

             SECOND APPEAL No. 2047 of 2018

BETWEEN:-
NARENDRA S/O PRITHVIRAJ PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM PAHEDA TEHSIL
MAHARGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                    .....APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
(MS. SONALI GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT)

AND
OMPRAKASH S/O KESHURAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM PAHEDA TEHSIL
MALHARGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
                               .....RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
(MR. MANGESH BACHAWAT AND MR. SAJID IQBAL ANSARI,
ADOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENT)
      This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:

                           ORDER

This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2018 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Mandsaur (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal No.99/2017 arising out of order dated 21.01.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.98-A/2014 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Narayangarh, District - Mandsaur.

(2) The brief facts of the case are as under:-

(1) ;g fd izfroknh ,oa oknh ds e/; O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k egksn; oxZ 02&nks ukjk;.kx<+ ds le{k ,d O;ogkj oknh ftldk okn Øekad 133&,d lkS rsfrl ,@96&fN;kUos LoRo ?kks"k.kk ,oa fu"ks/kkKk gsrq oknh }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA mDr okn izfroknh Øekad 01& ,d ds i{k esa fnukad 03-07-2000 & rhu tqykbZ nks gtkj dks fojks/kh vkf/kiR; ds vk/kkj ij d`f"k Hkwfe igsM+k fLFkr losZa uacj 662 jdck 0-152 v{kjh N%lkS cklB jdck 'kqU; n'keyc ,d lkS ckou dks izfroknh Øa- 01&,d ds i{k esa vkKkfIr ikfjr dh xbZ FkhA mDr okn esa oknxzLr Hkwfe dh prqlhZek bl izdkj Fkh%& mRrj esa%& oknh dh Hkwfe losZa Øekad 251&nks lkS bDdkou] nf{k.k es%a & losZa uacj 662&N% lkS cklB dh Hkwfe] iwoZ esa %& eqerkt vyh dh Hkwfe rFkk if'pe es%a & nsohyky o Hks:yky dh HkwfeA ijUrq U;k;ky; ds }kjk fu.kZ; fnukad 03-07-2000 rhu tqykbZ nks gtkj dks fu.kZ; o vkKfIr esa prqlhZek ugha n'kkZ;h xbZA 2- ;g fd mDr lnj okn LoRo ?kks"k.kk ,oa dCtk izkIr ckcr~ izLrqr fd;k tk jgk gSA lnj okn esa uD'ks esa n'kkZ;h xbZ yky jax ls ?kjk cukbZ x;h Hkwfe dks oknxzLr Hkwfe crk;k x;k gSA ftldk losZa uacj 334@1& rhu lkS pkSfrl cVk ,d jdck 0-152&'kqU;

n'keyo ,d lkS ckou ds dCtk izkIrh ckcr~ ;g okn gS rFkk layXu uD'kk okni= dk vax gS] lkFk gh U;k;ky; rglhynkj eYgkjx<+ dk ukekarj.k vkns'k izdj.k Øekad 37&lsfrl@v 06&N% @03&rhu X 04&pkj vkns'k fnukad 16-02-2004&lksyg Qjojh nks gtkj pkj ,oa cVkadu vkns'k izdj.k Øekad 31&bdRrhl@v@03&rhu @0506&'kwU; ikap lkS N% vkns'k fnukad 07-4-2004 & lkr ekpZ nks gtkj pkj nksuksa fookfnr vkns'k dks fujLr djus rFkk mDr vkns'kksa ds vuqlkj.k esa dh xbZ dk;Zokgh dks voS/k o 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djus ckcr~ ?kks"k.kkRed vkKfIr oknh }kjk pkgh xbZ gS rfkk mDr jktLo U;k;ky; ds nksuksa vkns'k o losZa uacj 334@1& rhu lkS pksfrl cVk ,d jdck 0-152 &'kwU; n'keyo ,d lkS ckou dks okn esa vkxs lqfo/kk dh n`f"V ls fookfnr vkns'k o fookfnr losZa uacj o jdck lacksf/kr fd;k x;k gSA 3- ;g fd orZeku okn esa losZa uacj 662&N% lkS cklB esa cVk uacj gksdj 662@21&N% lkS cklB cVk ,d o 662 @2&N% lkS cklB cVk nks vafdr fd;s x;sA losZa uacj 662@1 &N% lkS cklB cVk ,d ftldk u;k losZ uacj 335 & rhu lkS isfrl gSA izfroknh Øekad 01&,d ds ifjokj ds O;fDr us Ø; fd;k gS rFkk losZa uacj 662 @2&N% lkS cklB cVk nks ftldk u;k losZa uacj 334 & rhu lkS pksfrl gSA ujsUnz dqekj ¼oknh½ us Ø; fd;k gSA lkFk gh izfroknh Øekad 01 & ,d dk iqjkuk losZa uacj 251 & nks lkS bDdkou ftldk u;k losZ uacj 336 & rhu lkS nRrhl gSA bl izdkj nksuksa losZa uacj 662 @1 & N% lkS cklB cVk ,d o 251 &nks lkS bDdkou ftlds u;s losZ uacj 335 & rhu lkS isfrl o 336 &rhu lkS NRrhl gSA ekSds ij izfroknh Øekad 01&,d ds ifjokj ds gksus ls lsM+k QkM+dj ,d dj fy;s gSA iwoZorhZ okn esa

fMdzh losZa Øekad 662 & N% lkS cklB ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ij fojks/kh o vkf/kiR; ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr dh xbZ FkhA izfroknh dks 661@ 1&N % lkS bdlB cVk ,d o 662@2 &N% lkS cklB cVk nks nksuksa losZ uacj esa ls jdck 0-152 &'kwU; n'keyo ,d lkS ckou Hkwfe ij ukekarj.k djokuk Fkk rFkk cVk uacj djokuk Fkk ijUrq izfroknh Øekad 01 & ,d us iwoZorhZ okn ds vkns'k o fMØh dk xyr ikyu djokrs gq, oknh dh Hkwfe losZa Øekad 662@2 &N% lkS cklB cVk nks esa ls jdck 0-152 & 'kwU; n'keyo ,d lkS ckou dkV dj vyx djok fy;k gS rFkk ml ij ukekarj.k Hkh djok fy;k gSA mDr ukekarj.k o cVkadu ds fo:} jktLo U;k;ky; esa vihy @ iqujh{k.k vkfn fd;s ijUrq dgh ls Hkh oknh dks mDr =qfV lq/kkjus dk vkns'k ugha gqvk gSA tcfd izFke n`f"V;k =qfV Li"V ifjyf{kr gks jgh gSA 4- ;g fd izfroknh Øekad 01&,d ds }kjk mDr iwoZorhZ okn dh vkKfIr dk fu"iknu izfroknh Øekad 02&nks ds jktLo vf/kdkfj;ksa ls feydj losZa uacj 662@2 &N% lkS cklB cVk nks esa djok fy;k gSA tcfd vkKfIr esa tks Hkwfe of.kZr gS oks Hkwfe losZa uacj 662@1 &N% lkS cklB cVk ,d esa Hkh vkrh gSA izfroknh Øekad 01&,d ds }kjk oknh ls nqHkkZouk j[krs gq, iwoZorhZ okn esa fMØh o vkns'k dk xyr ikyu djok fy;k gSA ftls fujLr fd;k tkuk U;k;fgr esa vko';d gSA vkKfIr ls ckgj tkdj vkKfIr dk fu"iknu Lor% 'kwU; o voS/k gksrk gSaA mDr fu"iknu izfroknh Øekad 01&,d dks U;k;ky; ds }kjk djok;k tkuk FkkA tks uk djok dj jktLo vf/kdkfj;ksa ds }kjk Hkh vkns'k o vkKfIr ls ijs tkdj vkKfIr dk fu"iknu fd;k x;k gSA bl okLrs mDr nksuksa fookfnr vkns'k fujLr dj fookfnr Hkwfe dk dCtk oknh dks fnyok;k tkos rFkk mDr nksuksa vkns'k oknh ij ca/ku dkjd ugha gSA oknh fuEu lgk;rk pkgrk gS%& 1- ;g fd oknh ds i{k esa vkSj izfroknhx.kksa ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh fMØh ikfjr fd tkos fd orZeku losZa uacj 334 @1 & rhu lkS pksfrl cVk ,d jdck 0-152 'kwU; n'keyo ,d lkS ckou gs- fLFkr Hkwfe igsM+k rg- eYgkjx<+ ij tks iwoZorhZ okn izdj.k Øekad 133 & ,d lkS rSfrl ,@96 & fN;kUos fnukad 03-07-2000 & rhu tqykbZ nks gtkj dks fu"iknu fd;k x;k gS o iwoZorhZ okn ds vkns'k o fMØh ds foijhr gksus ls 'kwU; o voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosA 2- ;g fd okn esa jktLo U;k;ky; dk izdj.k Øekad 37@v@06@03 X 04 vkns'k fnukad 16-02-2004 & lksyg Qjojh nks gtkj pkj dks cVkadu dk vkns'k izdj.k Øekad 31@v&3@0506 vkns'k fnukad 07-04-2004 & lkr vizSy nks gtkj pkj dks ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos fd og oknh ij ca/ku dkjd ugha gSA 3- ;g fd fookfnr Hkwfe losZ uacj 334 @1&rhu lkS pksfrl cVk ,d jdck 0-152 & 'kwU; n'keyo ,d lkS ckou dk dCtk iqu% oknh dks fnyok;k tkosA

(3) Learned trial Court vide order dated 21.01.2016 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.98/2014 dismissed the suit filed by appellant/plaintiff and appeal filed by appellant/plaintiff was also dismissed by Second Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, vide judgment dated 05.05.2018 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.99/2017. Against this, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the second appeal.

(4) Learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff submits that courts below have wrongly dismissed the appellant/plaintiff's suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC by holding that suit is time barred as well as hit by constructive res-judicata. It is also urged that learned trial Court ought to have framed issues and should have granted opportunity to the parties to led evidence. Thereafter the trial Court ought to have decided the suit on merits. The plaintiff is the owner of suit property on the basis of registered sale deed. On above grounds, it is submitted that substantial questions of law, as mentioned in the appeal memo, arise for determination of this Court and appeal be admitted for final hearing.

(5) Learned counsel for respondent/defendant submits that respondent has been declared owner of suit property/survey no.662 ad-measuring 0.152 hectares vide judgment dated 03.07.2000 passed in RCS 70-A/1990/133A/1996 and no suit for recovery of possession was filed. It is also urged that respondent has not taken possession of suit property in execution of decree and decree passed in favour of respondent was a declaratory decree. On the basis of above decree, the respondent got his name mutated over

the above property and if there is any dispute with respect to execution, then recourse should have been taken to Section 47 of CPC and executing court is empowerED to decide any objection relating to execution of proceedings. Learned courts below have rightly dismissed the suit and appeal filed by appellant/plaintiff.

(6) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have minutely gone through the record of Courts below.

(7) It is apparent from records of Courts below that it is a case of concurrent findings of facts i.e. both the Courts below have dismissed the suit/appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

(8) A perusal of the case file reveals that respondent/defendant has filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the learned trial Court and vide order dated 21.01.2016 the trial Court has allowed the application and dismissed the suit filed by appellant/plaintiff on the ground that it is time barred as well as hit by res-judicata. Above findings of trial Court has been affirmed by learned appellate court by a detailed order examining all the aspects of the case as well as documents available on record. Admittedly, the respondent/defendant has been declared owner of suit property vide judgment dated 03.07.2000 passed in RCS No.133A/1996 on the ground of adverse possession. Further, a perusal of judgment passed in RCS No.26A/2009 reveals that present appellant/plaintiff - Narendra Kumar filed above suit for declaration etc with respect to survey no.662 (new number 334) has been dismissed and appeal filed by appellant/plaintiff - Narendra was also dismissed by appellate court vide judgment

dated 13.07.2011 passed in RCA No.03A/2011.

(9) Hence, in view of above discussion as well as the plaint averments and documents on record, in this Court's considered opinion, it cannot be said that courts below has committed any illegality or perversity in allowing the respondent/defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and dismissing the suit/appeal filed by appellant/plaintiff. The findings recorded by the courts below are well supported by documents available on record. There is no perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below. It can also not be said that findings recorded by the courts below are against documents on record/plaintiff's averments or that courts below have overlooked any material documents or any plaint averments.

(10) For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are fully justified by record of the case. Concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are not based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence nor it is shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

(11) A copy of this order along with record be sent back to the courts below for information and its compliance.

(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE Arun/-

ARUN

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, 2.5.4.20=d5b56e3de75e7828ced1a96bc4f01804c3ea 1f0a5497e4019e41c0a82cbabbf0,

NAIR postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=192F2423E128DC1CC004DD8FF22B3 F2FFC3D1EF75981FCBEF3B2B76823F270F7, cn=ARUN NAIR Date: 2023.12.14 19:49:55 +05'30'