Shambhu Dayal vs Smt Geeta Bai
2023 Latest Caselaw 364 MP

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                                              ON THE 6 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                             SECOND APPEAL No. 1149 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SHAMBHU DAYAL S/O GAPPULAL BANSAL, AGED
                           ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, AT
                           PRESENT R/O B/15 MAYUR VIHAR, VIKAS NAGAR,
                           SHIVPURI ROAD, SHEOPUR, DISTRICT SHEOPUR
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANT
                           (MR. ANAND VINOD BHARDWAJ - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)

                           AND
                           1.    SMT GEETA BAI S/O MOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 61
                                 YEAR S, R/O WARD NO 4, SHEOPUR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    SMT. KAMLA BAI W/O SHRI DEVI SHANKAR
                                 GARG, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                                 THOTHAR, DISTRICT SHEOPPUR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTRICT
                                 SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           ( MS. KALPNA PARMAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

                                 This appeal coming on for Admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                            ORDER

Present second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2022 passed by District Judge, Sheopur (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No. RCA/08/2022 affirming the judgment and decree

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 1/10/2023 12:41:07 PM

dated 21.12.2021 passed by the Ist Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sheopur (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.1200086A/2016.

Factual matrix of the case are in brief are that respondent/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 05.10.2016 in respect to land bearing Survey No. 607 ad-measuring 39 Bigha 3 Biswa situated at Village Adwad Tahsil and District Sheopur (M.P). It is stated that the said disputed property is recorded in the name of Parvati Bai and she succeeded to property from father of plaintiff i.e. Prabhulal. Parvati Bai passed away while she was living with the plaintiff No. 1 and during her lifetime, she was well taken care by plaintiff No.1. Now, the plaintiffs are in possession of disputed land. Defendant

No. 1 has no relation with Parvati Bai. She never lived with him. Defendant No. 1 was son of Parvati Bai's brother in law. It is further stated that Parvati Bai was never executed Will in favour of defendant No.1. After the death of Parvati Bai, defendant No. 1 filed an application for mutation before Tahsil Court, which was objected by plaintiffs and mutation order was passed in favor of defendant No. 1 on 16.01.2014, against which, an appeal No. 26/13-14 was preferred before the Sub Divisional Officer and the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2015. It was further pleaded that revenue court is not competent authority to decide the title of property, therefore, the suit was filed. More so, the plaintiff be declared owner of the property and Will dated 27.06.1997 be declared as null and void. The order passed by the Revenue Court on the basis of Will is devoid of merit. It is further prayed that defendant No. 1 be injuncted from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs.

Defendant/appellant appeared before the learned trial Court and filed his written statement and stated that Parvati Bai having 1/6th share (6 Bigha and 11 Biswa) of property situated at Village Adwad, Tahsil and District Sheopur Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 1/10/2023 12:41:07 PM

(M.P.). It is further stated that till Samvat 2041 to 2045, the disputed land is recorded in the name of father of defendant No. 1 Gappu, who is infact younger brother-in-law of Parvati Bai. As such the disputed land was given to her for maintenance, therefore, Parvati Bai executed a Will on 27.06.1997 in favour of defendant No.1 and further the name of defendant No. 1 was mutated in revenue records after due inquiry. It is further pleaded that the Will is duly registered document and infact Parvati Bai was the Tai (Aunt) of defendant No. 1 having no son, therefore, she executed the Will in favour of defendant No.1. therefore, appellant/defendant prayed for dismissing the suit.

On the basis of pleadings, trial Court framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead the evidence.

The trial Court, upon due appreciation of evidence on record, recorded the findings that the Will dated 27.06.1997 forged and is null and void. The learned trial Court also found that plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed land and decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs.

The First Appellate Court reconsidering the entire evidence available on record and discussed the same as regard the property in question and found that no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court while allowing the suit.

Upon perusal of the judgment and decree of the Courts below and the

arguments advanced, the appeal is found to be devoid of any substance. In the opinion of this court, entire gamut of the matter is in the realm of facts of the case. Both the Courts below have recorded impeccable finding based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises warranting interference under Section 100 of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 1/10/2023 12:41:07 PM

CPC.

Consequently, this second appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed at admission stage.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE (LJ*)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN Signing time: 1/10/2023 12:41:07 PM