Chandra Shekhar Tripathi vs Smt.Gheesa Bai
2023 Latest Caselaw 821 MP

                                                              1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                               ON THE 13 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                             SECOND APPEAL No. 1757 of 2007

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    CHANDRA SHEKHAR TRIPATHI S/O MOTILAL,
                                AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

                          2.    TRIBHUVAN NARAYAN S/O SHRI MOTILAL, AGED
                                ABOUT 43 YEARS,

                                BOTH RESIDENTS OF INDRA NAGAR, NEW YARD,
                                ITARSI, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI PRIYANK KHANDELWAL - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          SMT.GHEESA BAI WD/O BHAGIRATH PRASAD, AGED
                          ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O INDRA NAGAR, NEW YARD,
                          ITARSI, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI SOMESH RAI - ADVOCATE )

                                This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

                          following:
                                                              ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants 1-2 challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2007 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in civil appeal no.30-A/2007, reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2007 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Itarsi in civil suit no.40- A/2006, whereby learned trial Court had dismissed the suit, which has been decreed by first appellate Court.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 1/13/2023 6:21:10 PM

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after service of summons of the plaint, the defendants filed written statement taking plea that the land in question/suit property was given to them by Lalaram but lateron, they were proceeded exparte, therefore, they could not adduce any evidence and could not cross-examine the plaintiff and her witnesses. He further submits that learned trial Court rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff - Smt. Gheesa Bai, because she could not prove title of her predecessor Smt. Shanta Bai (Shanti Bai) wife of Lalaram over the suit land/property. He further submits that plaintiff has to prove his case and he cannot be given benefit of any of the weakness of the case of defendants. Accordingly, he prays for admission of the

appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Although, learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.02.2007 dismissed the suit but while deciding issue no.2 has held that the plaintiff purchased the disputed property vide registered sale deed dated 03.06.1996 from Shanti Bai (Shanta Bai) and received possession, but for want of proof of title of Shanti Bai, in view of judgment and decree (Document C/1) refused to pass any decree in favour of the plaintiff.

6. In appeal filed by the plaintiff, learned first appellate Court has decreed the suit in toto.

7. Undisputedly the plaintiff purchased the suit property from Shanti Bai (Shanta Bai) who was wife of Lalaram and the defendants were claiming their possession through husband of Shanti Bai. At present, Shanti Bai and

Signature Not Verified Lalaram both have died. As such, in any case, Shanti Bai (Shanta Bai) has Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 1/13/2023 6:21:10 PM

acquired rights after death of Lalaram, therefore, in my considered opinion, in absence of any document of title in favour of the appellants/defendants, it cannot be said that learned first appellate Court has committed any illegality in passing the judgment and decree and in decreeing the suit.

8. Resultantly, the second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 rule 11 CPC. However, no order as to costs.

9. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE pb

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Signing time: 1/13/2023 6:21:10 PM