Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghunath Bais vs Ram Jag Bais on 2 January, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 2 nd OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 3091 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
RAGHUNATH BAIS S/O LATE RAMKARAN BAIS, AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O
VILLAGE BARAHPAN POST PIPRA KURAND P.S.
WAIDHAN, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AGNIVESH DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAM JAG BAIS S/O LATE RAMKARAN BAIS, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BARAHPAN, POST
PIPRA KURAND P.S. WAIDHAN, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BALGOVIND BAIS S/O LATE RAMKARAN BAIS,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BARAHPAN, POST PIPRA KURAND P.S. WAIDHAN,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. BALMUKUND BAIS S/O LATE RAMKARAN BAIS,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BARAHPAN, POST PIPRA KURAND P.S. WAIDHAN,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. ANAND KUMAR BAIS S/O LATE RAMKARAN BAIS,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BARAHPAN, POST PIPRA KURAND P.S. WAIDHAN,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RUKMUNIYA W/O LATE RAMKARAN BAIS, AGED
ABOUT 75 YEARSR/O VILLAGE BARAHPAN, POST
PIPRA KURAND P.S. WAIDHAN, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 04-01-2023
18:38:32
2
6. DASHARAM S/O LATE RAMKARAN BAIS, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARSR/O VILLAGE BARAHPAN, POST
PIPRA KURAND P.S. WAIDHAN, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. RAMLALLU S/O LATE RAMKARAN BAIS, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BARAHPAN, POST
PIPRA KURAND P.S. WAIDHAN, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE RAMKARAN BAIS, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS,R/O VILLAGE BARAHPAN, POST
PIPRA KURAND P.S. WAIDHAN, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR, SINGRAULI DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
has been filed against the order dated 14.05.2019 passed by Third Additional
District Judge, Singrauli, HQ Waidhan (M.P.) in Regular Civil Appeal
No.15A/2015, by which an application filed under Section 45 of Evidence Act
has been rejected on the ground that no reason has been assigned as to why
such an application was not filed before the trial Court.
The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition, in short, are that
the petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction in respect of disputed property on the basis of a will dated
15.03.2013, purportedly executed by Ramkaran Vaishya. It was the case that in
spite of a will executed by Ramkaran Vaishya, the defendants No.1 to 4 had
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 04-01-2023
18:38:32
succeeded in getting their names mutated in the revenue records on the basis of
another will dated 03.03.2012.
The civil suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was registered as Regular Civil
Appeal No.15A/2015. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner
moved an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for comparison of
the signatures of the testator late Ramkaran Vaishya on the will dated
03.03.2012 (which was in favour of the defendants No.1 to 4). The appellate
Court rejected the application by the impugned order dated 14.05.2019.
Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the
counsel for the petitioner that since the defendants No.1 to 4 are also claiming
their right/title on the basis of a will dated 03.03.2012, whereas the petitioner is
also claiming his title on the basis of will dated 13.03.2013, therefore, it was
necessary to get the signatures of the testator on will dated 03.03.2012
examined by an handwriting expert.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The copy of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of
Evidence Act has been filed as Annexure P/1. In the said application, it is
merely mentioned that the will relied upon by the defendants No.1 to 4 is forged
document and therefore, the petitioner wants to get the signatures of the testator
examined by an handwriting expert. However, no reason was mentioned as to
why such an application was not filed before the trial Court. It is true that the
petitioner could have filed such an application at the appellate stage also, but he
should have given some reason for not filing the said application before the trial
Court. The appellate Court has rejected the application on the ground that no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 04-01-2023
18:38:32
reason has been assigned as to why the similar application was not filed before
the trial Court. The reasoning assigned by the appellate Court cannot be said to
be perverse.
As no jurisdictional error could be pointed out by the counsel for the
petitioner, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
vc
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Signing time: 04-01-2023
18:38:32
