Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Devki vs Parshuram on 20 February, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 598 OF 2019
BETWEEN:-
SMT. DEVKI W/O VISHWAMITA
BRAHMIN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND
HOUSEWORK R/O VILLAGE
PIPARVAAN, POST BADKUD, TEHSIL
CHITRANGI, DIST. SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
...................APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SUYASH TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. PARSHURAM S/O LATE
ARYA PRASAD BRAHMIN, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
PIPARVAAN, POST BADKUD,
TAHSIL CHITRANGI, DISTT.
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VISHWAMITRA S/O LATE
ARYA PRASAD BRAHMIN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
PIPARVAABM OIST BADKUD,
TAHSIL CHITRANGI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. JANAKDHARI S/O LATE
ARYA PRASAD BRAHMIN, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
PIPARVAAN, POST BADKUD,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/27/2023
6:09:29 PM
2
TEHSIL CHITRANGI, DIST.
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BHAIROLAL S/O
RAMVISHAL RAM BRAHMIN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BADKUD, TEHSIL
CHITRANGI, DIST. SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. KALECTAR PRASAD S/O
RAMVISHAL RAM BRAHMIN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BADKUD, TEHSIL
CHITRANGI, DIST. SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH THR. COLLECTOR
DISTT-SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
...............RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SOMESH GUPTA
PANEL LAWYER FOR
RESPONDENT 6/STATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2018 passed by 2nd
Additional District Judge, Deosar, District Singrauli in RCA
No.500011/2015, affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2013
passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Deosar, District Singrauli in Civil Suit
No.47-A/2010, whereby learned Courts below have dismissed the suit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/27/2023
6:09:29 PM
filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction and in alternative
for restoration of possession in respect of the disputed lands and also for
declaring the sale deed dated 26.05.2006 and 06.06.2007 null and void.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff is
exclusive Bhumiswami of the land left by Mankamna Ram who executed
a Will on 10.01.2006 (Ex P/1) in favour of the plaintiff, which has been
proved by examination of attesting witnesses Harinandan (PW-3) and
Pannalal (PW-4) so also by the scribe of the Will namely Ramji (PW-2),
but learned Courts below have on the basis of minor
discrepancies/contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses, have erred
in holding that the Will has not been proved by the plaintiff and
consequently, erred in dismissing the suit. With these submissions, he
prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the
record.
4. While deciding the issue Nos. 1-3, learned trial Court has
appreciated evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses in detail and has found
that there are several major contradictions and discrepancies in the
testimony of the witnesses, especially the scribe and attesting witnesses
Harinandan and Pannalal and accordingly held that the Will is surrounded
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/27/2023
6:09:29 PM
by several suspicious circumstances, which have not been removed by the
plaintiff.
5. From para 16 to 20, learned first appellate Court has also observed
the suspicious circumstances, so also the fact that the plaintiff has failed
to prove the execution of the Will as well as its attestation as per
provisions contained in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and
Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, and affirming the findings of
learned trial Court held that the Will has not been proved by the plaintiff.
6. After perusal of the entire record and the testimony of plaintiff's
witnesses, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and
decree passed by learned Courts below.
7. Resultantly, there being no substantial question of law involved in
the present second appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.
8. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
[email protected]
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/27/2023
6:09:29 PM
