Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chotulal vs Gangadhar on 6 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 6 th OF JANUARY, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 527 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. CHOTULAL S/O NANURAM, AGED ABOUT 46
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
VILLAGE BARNAWAD, TEHSIL PACHORE
DISTRICT RAJGARH, BIAORA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. GOVERDHAN S/O SIDDHU, AGED ABOUT 43
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
VILLAGE BARNAWAD, TEHSIL PACHORE
DISTRICT RAJGARH, BIAORA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. VIMLESH BAI W/O LATE AMBARAM, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BARNAWAD,
TEHSIL PACHORE DISTRICT RAJGARH, BIAORA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUMIT S/O LT. AMBARAM MINOR THROUGH
N.G.MOTHER VIMLESH BAI R/O VILLAGE
BARNAWAD, TEHSIL PACHORE DISTRICT
RAJGARH, BIAORA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. AMIT S/O LATE AMBARAM MINOR THR. N.G.
MOTHER VIMLESH BAI R/O VILLAGE
BARNAWAD, TEHSIL PACHORE DISTRICT
RAJGARH, BIAORA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MUKESH S/O HARIRAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE
BARNAWAD, TEHSIL PACHORE DISTRICT
RAJGARH, BIAORA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI MURTUZA BOHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS)
AND
1. GANGADHAR S/O TULSIRAM, AGED ABOUT 53
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 11-01-2023
13:20:00
2
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
VILLAGE BARNAWAD, TEHSIL PACHORE
DISTRICT RAJGARH, BIAORA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. HARISINGH S/O TULSIRAM, AGED ABOUT 48
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
VILLAGE BARNAWAD, TEHSIL PACHORE
DISTRICT RAJGARH, BIAORA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. PREMBAI W/O GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 43
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
VILLAGE BARNAWAD, TEHSIL PACHORE
DISTRICT RAJGARH, BIAORA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. BASANTIBAI W/O HARISIGH, AGED ABOUT 38
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O
VILLAGE BARNAWAD, TEHSIL PACHORE
DISTRICT RAJGARH, BIAORA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR RAJGARH
DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
The appellants/defendants have filed this second appeal against the
judgment dated 08.08.2016 passed by the learned Ist Civil Judge, Class-II,
Sarangpur, district Rajgarh in Civil Suit No.50A/2013 whereby the suit filed by
the respondents/plaintiffs has been partly decreed and the judgment dated
11.02.2021 passed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Sarangpur,
district Rajgarh in Civil Appeal No.33A/2016 filed by the appellants/defendants
has been dismissed.
The facts of the case in short are as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 11-01-2023
13:20:00
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants
by submitting that the land bearing Survey No.449/6 area 0.341 hectare and
Survey No.449/7 area 0.159 hectare situated at village Barnawad, Tehsil
Pachore, district Rajgarh, Biaora (hereinafter referred to as "suit land") were
allotted to them by way of lease vide order dated 25.01.2001 by the Naib
Tehsildar. They were put into possession on 15.06.2002. They have planted
various trees and now the defendants are trying to snatch the suit land from
them. Hence, the cause of action accrued on 15.09.2013 for filing the suit for
permanent injunction.
The defendants appeared and filed the written statement by submitting
that the plaintiffs was given the lease of Survey No.449/6 vide order dated
25.01.2001, whereas the suit land of Survey No.449/7 area 0.159 hectare has
never been allotted to the plaintiffs and the possession was not given by the
Revenue Inspector or Patwari. They were never trying to take away the
possession from the plaintiffs, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed with
cost. The learned trial Court framed three issues for adjudication. The
defendants examined the then Patwari as DW-1. In his cross examination he has
admitted that the plaintiffs have been awarded the entire suit land and they are in
possession. However, the defendants have not come up with any plea that they
have never claimed any ownership or lease hold rights over the suit land.
After appreciating the evidence came on record, the learned trial Court
has held that the plaintiffs are lease holders of the suit land and except the road
between these two surveys, they are in possession of the remaining land and
restrained the defendants to interfere into the possession of the plaintiffs. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendants preferred first
Signature Not Verified
appeal which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 11-01-2023
13:20:00
11.02.2021. Hence, this present second appeal before this Court.
Shri Bohra, learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the
Courts below have wrongly held that the plaintiffs are lease holders of entire suit
land, whereas vide order dated 25.01.2001 the plaintiffs have been given Survey
No.449/6 on lease, therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to remain in possession
of Survey No.449/7.
The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking permanent injunction and for the grant of
decree of permanent injunction, the learned trial Court has prima facie held that
the plaintiffs are the lease holders and in possession of the suit land, except the
road between them and the defendants have been restrained to interfere into the
possession. The defendants never claimed any lease hold rights or possession
over the suit land, therefore, the decree of permanent injunction has rightly been
granted in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. No rights of the
defendants are being affected by the judgment and decree specially when the
defendants have specifically pleaded that they are not going to dispossess the
plaintiffs. So far as the Survey No.449/7 is concerned, the dispute is between
the Government and the plaintiffs. The defendants have no locus to challenge
the same.
In view of the above, this appeal does not involve any question of law
much less substantial question of law. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is
hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
RJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 11-01-2023
13:20:00
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 11-01-2023
13:20:00
