Madhya Pradesh High Court
Samlo Bai vs Imarta Bai on 22 February, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
SECOND APPEAL No.1212 of 2022
22nd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
Between:-
SAMLO BAI D/O SHRI JOGI, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS, R/O GRAM JAMUDHANA (KHAIRA)
TEH. BHAINSDEHI, DISTT. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
....................................APPELLANT
(BY MR. P.K. MISHRA-ADVOCATE)
AND
1.IMARTA BAI D/O SHRI JOGI R/O GRAM
JAMUDHANA(KHAIRA), TEH. BHAINSDEHI,
DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.FULIA BAI W/O SHRI MANGILAL KHAIRA
TAHSIL BHAINSDEHI DISTIRCT BETUL M.P
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.STATE OF M.P THROUGH COLLECTOR
DISTRICT BETUL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/27/2023
11:15:22 AM
2
......................RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA RAJPUT-PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT 3/STATE)
..........................................................................................................................................
This appeal coming on for admission on this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant 1 Samlo Bai
challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2022 passed by District Judge,
Bhaisdehi, District Betul in Regular Civil Appeal No.50/2017, reversing the judgment
and decree dated 30.11.2016 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Bhaisdehi, District Betul in
Civil Suit no.16-A/2016, whereby learned trial Court holding the plaintiff and defendant
1 both to be entitled for 1/2 -1/2 share each, dismissed the suit holding it to be barred by
limitation, which in civil appeal filed by plaintiff Imarta Bai has been reversed and by
allowing her civil appeal, the finding in respect of the suit to be barred by limitation, has
been reversed and ultimately, there is concurrent finding of both the Courts below that
the plaintiff and defendant 1 both are entitled for 1/2-1/2 share in the suit property.
2. In short the facts are that the plaintiff/respondent 1 Imarta Bai claiming herself to
be daughter of Jogi and sister of defendant 1/appellant Samlo Bai instituted the suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction over 1/2 share in the suit land as described
in para 2 of the plaint.
3. Defendant 1 Samlo Bai appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint
allegations and also contended that she is exclusive bhoomiswami of the land in
question because the plaintiff is not her sister and she is the only daughter of Jogi. She
further contended that the suit is barred by limitation. With these contentions, the suit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/27/2023
11:15:22 AM
was prayed to be dismissed.
4. Learned trial Court after holding trial held that the plaintiff and defendant 1, both
are daughters of bhoomiswami Jogi and are entitled for 1/2-1/2 share each, however,
while deciding issue no.2 and on the basis of the order passed by S.D.O. dated
25.07.2006 (Ex.P/11) held the suit to be barred by limitation.
5. Upon filing civil appeal by the plaintiff, learned first appellate Court has vide its
judgment and decree dated 07.01.2022, allowed the appeal and by reversing the finding
in respect of the limitation, affirmed the finding in respect of ownership of plaintiff and
defendant 1 over 1/2-1/2 share each.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned first appellate Court has
erred in reversing the finding of learned trial Court in respect of limitation. He further
submits that from the date of order dated 25.07.2006, limitation in respect of declaration
of title was started and it was for the plaintiff to file the suit within three years from
25.07.2006, as such, the suit was clearly beyond limitation and the learned first appellate
Court has erred in reversing the finding on the issue of limitation. Accordingly, he prays
for admission of the appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The order dated 25.07.2006 (Ex.P/11) passed by S.D.O. shows that in the appeal
filed by Samlo Bai (defendant 1), order dated 11.02.1995 passed in Panji No.40 was set
aside and the matter was remanded back to Court below for passing fresh order of
mutation, upon filing application by the concerning party, with the further direction to
decide the same on merits. The order dated 25.07.2006 does not say that there were any
clouds over title of the plaintiff-Imarta Bai.
9. There is nothing on record to show that after passing of the order dated
25.07.2006, anybody has challenged the title of the plaintiff and even in the written
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/27/2023
11:15:22 AM
statement, appellant/defendant 1-Samlo Bai has not taken any plea of adverse
possession, therefore, the suit which is for declaration of title and permanent injunction
on the basis of vested ownership's right of succession, through her father Jogi, cannot be
said to be beyond limitation.
10. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned first appellate Court
has not committed any illegality in reversing the finding on the question of limitation.
11. Resultantly, second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41
rule 11 CPC. However, no order as to the costs.
12. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 2/27/2023
11:15:22 AM
