Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hinchhlal Vishwakarma vs Abhayraj Vishwakarma on 21 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 21 st OF DECEMBER, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 622 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1. HINCHHLAL VISHWAKARMA S/O LATE
DHANUKDHARI LOHAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST HATVA BARHA
TOLA TEH. SIHAWAL DIST. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RAMSUNDER VISHWAKARMA S/O LATE
DHANUKDHARI LOHAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE HATVA BARHA
TOLA TEHSIL SIHAWAL DISTT.SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. RAJENDRA VISHWAKARMA S/O LATE
DHANUKDHARI LOHAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE HATVA BARHA
TOLA TEHSIL SIHAWAL DISTT.SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI K.B. VISHWAKARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ABHAYRAJ VISHWAKARMA S/O RAMSUNDER
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HATVA
BARHA TOLA TEH. SIHAWAL DIST. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MUS. DHANARJUA W/O LATE DHANUKDHARI
LOHAR, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/O HATVA
BARHA TOLA TEHSIL SIHAWAL DISTRICT SIDHI
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
C O L L E C T O R SIDHI DISTRICT SIDHI M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 12/22/2023
6:22:08 PM
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SHARAD VERMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS 1-2 AND SHRI
SATISH PATERIYA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT -3/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/plaintiffs
challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 26.11.2019 passed by 4th Additional
District Judge, Sidhi in RCA No.112-A/18 affirming the judgment and decree
dtd.23.02.2016 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Sidhi in civil suit No.229-
A/2015 whereby learned courts below have dismissed plaintiffs' suit for
declaring the sale deed dtd.17.08.2012 (Ex.P/1 or Ex.D/2) and for permanent
injunction in respect of 1/4th share in the suit land survey Nos.169, 170, 299,
469, 482, 594 and 595 total area 1.80 hect.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the suit land
belonged to father of plaintiffs and husband of defendant 2-Mst. Dhanrajua
namely Dhanukdhari Vishwakarma and no partition has taken place, as such the
plaintiffs are in possession of the entire property, but the defendant 1-Abhayraj
Vishwakarma (who is son of plaintiff 2-Ram Sunder) fraudulently got executed
sale deed on 17.08.2012 from his grandmother Mst. Dhanrajua without payment
of consideration in respect of her 1/4th share in the suit land. Learned counsel
submits that the sale deed allegedly executed by defendant 2- Mst. Dhanrajua in
favour of defendant 1 being without consideration and without delivery of
possession, is null and void and learned courts below have committed illegality
in dismissing the suit.
3 . Learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 supports the impugned
judgment and decree passed by courts below and prays for dismissal of second
appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5 . Undisputedly the land in question total area 1.80 hect. belonged to
Dhanukdhari Vishwakarma and after his death it came in the name of plaintiffs
and defendant 2-Mst. Dhanrajua (3 sons and wife of Dhanukdhari) and there is
no dispute in the present case that Mst. Dhanrajua was having 1/4 share in the
suit land. The sale deed appears to have been executed on 17.08.2012, whereas
defendant 2-Mst. Dhanrajua died on 03.08.2017, who in the civil suit filed in the
year 2012, has also filed written statement accepting execution of registered sale
deed dtd.17.08.2012. Further execution of sale deed has also been proved by
defendant 1 by adducing cogent and reliable evidence available on record.
6. It is well settled that third person cannot challenge the sale deed on the
ground of non-payment of sale consideration, especially in the case where
executant of the sale deed has, by filing written statement, admitted its execution
and receipt of payment of consideration.
7 . Learned courts below have, on basis of available oral and
documentary evidence, also found that there was partition among the plaintiffs
and defendant 2-Mst. Dhanrajua and all are in separate possession of the land
according to their share.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion learned
courts below do not appear to have committed any illegality in dismissing the
suit.
9 . Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this
second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
