Veniram vs Ganpat
2023 Latest Caselaw 1820 MP

                                                        1

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE

                                             SA No. 1935 of 2019
                                          (VENIRAM Vs GANPAT AND OTHERS)



              Dated : 01-02-2023
                         Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.
                         Shri Akshat Pahadia, learned counsel for the Respondent [R-8].

Shri Onkar Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the Respondent [R- 1].

____________________________________________________________ Heard on I.A. no. 4954/2019, which is an application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC seeking stay of judgment /decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court dated 11th May, 2019, whereby the judgment/decree granted in favour of the appellant has been reversed.

Newly added respondent no. 8 purchased the suit property i.e. house no. 117, ward no. 9, Kukshi by way of registered sale deed from defendant no. 6, who had already purchased this property from defendant no. 1. After dismantling the old house, now the defendant no. 8 is trying to raise a new construction. Hence the appellant approached this Court by way of seeking injunction against respondent/ defendant no. 8.

The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of 1/7 th share in the suit property from defendant no. 1. He came up with a plea that defendant no. 1 had promised him to give share in the sale consideration. Defendant no.1 came up with a plea that during the lifetime of his father, partition took place between them and house no. 117 i.e. the suit house came into his favour and house no. 174 fell into the share of the plaintiff, which he had already sold and in which, no share has been given. Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL N MAHANAG Signing time: 2/2/2023 10:57:16 AM

Although the trial Court has granted ½ share to the plaintiff, but the 1 st Appellate Court has reversed the same, hence this appeal before this Court.

Therefore, in view of the above, when the plaintiff himself came up with a share in the sale consideration, the defendant no. 8 cannot be restrained to raise a construction over the suit property as he has purchased the same by way of registered sale deed. If the plaintiff succeeds in the second appeal, he can be compensated by paying amount from the sale consideration from defendant no. 1 to defendant no.6.

Accordingly, I.A. 4954/2019 stands disposed of. Certified copy, as per Rules.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE amol

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL N MAHANAG Signing time: 2/2/2023 10:57:16 AM