Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Bahadur Singh vs Smt. Hiraudevi on 11 July, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 11 th OF JULY, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 3071 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJENDRA BAHADUR SINGH S/O SHRI
LALBAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL. KOTAHA
TEH. GOPADBANAS PS KOTWALI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. BRIJENDRA BAHADUR SINGH S/O SHRI
LALBAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGICULTURIST VILLAGE KOTHA
GOPADBNAS PS KOTWALI SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. BHUPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH S/O SHRI
LALBAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGICULTURIST VILLAGE KOTHA
GOPAD B N AS PS KOTWALI SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SHAILENDRA BAHADUR SINGH S/O SHRI
LALBAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE
KOTHA TEH. GOPADBANAS DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. UPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH S/O LALBAHADUR
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE KOTHA TEH.
GOPADBANAS DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RANJEET SINGH S/O LALBAHADUR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
R/O VILLAGE KOTHA TEH. GOPADBANAS DISTT.
SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI NEERAJ SINGH CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 7/12/2023
12:26:58 PM
2
1. SMT. HIRAUDEVI W/O RAMKRIPAL GUPTA, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
VILL. KOTHA TEH. GOPADBANAS PS KOTWALI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIWAKAR SINGH S/O SHRI LALBAHADUR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ADVOCATE R/O VILLAGE KOTHA TEH.
GOPADBANAS DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTT.
SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. CHANDRAKANTA PAL, PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT-
STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
challenging the judgment & decree dtd. 23.07.2019 passed by 1st Addl. District
Judge, Sidhi in Regular Civil Appeal No.22-A/2015 affirming the judgment &
decree dtd. 03.02.2015 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-1, Sidhi in Civil Suit
No.76-A/10 whereby plaintiffs/appellants' suit for declaration of title and
permanent injunction, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that in the land
Survey No.233/5 area 0.283 hectare, the defendant 2-Diwakar Singh, who is
brother of the plaintiffs, was having only 1/8 share and as against his 1/8 share,
he sold an area 0.105 hectare land out of 0.283 hectare. As such, the sale deed
dtd. 30.01.1989 executed for more share than held by the defendant 2-Diwakar
Singh, is null and void and consequently order of mutation dtd. 21.04.1989 is
also void and ineffective. He submits that learned Courts below have erred in
dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation and further erred in holding that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 7/12/2023
12:26:58 PM
the plaintiffs have failed to prove the land in question to be their ancestral
property. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prays for
admission of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the record.
4. Learned Courts below after due appreciation of the evidence available on
record held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the land in question to be their
ancestral property. The sale deed in question was executed on 30.01.1989
(Ex.P/1) and the instant suit has been instituted on 16.09.2010 i.e. after about 21
years. As per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, there is limitation of three years
for challenging the sale deed. As the plaintiffs are not party to the sale deed,
therefore, as per provision contained in Article 59 of the Limitation Act, they
were having right to file the civil suit within three years from the date of
knowledge of the sale deed. Learned both the Courts below have taken into
consideration the statement of plaintiff-Upendra Bahadur Singh made in para 8
of cross examination, whereby he has categorically admitted that the plaintiffs
came to know about the execution of the sale deed dtd. 30.01.1989 by Diwakar
Singh in the year 1991-1992 itself.
5. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by learned Courts below on
the basis of admissions of the plaintiff-Upendra Bahadur Singh, there does not
appear any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment & decree passed by
learned Courts below.
6. Resultantly, having found no involvement of substantial question of law,
this second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule
11 CPC.
7. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 7/12/2023
12:26:58 PM
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Pallavi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 7/12/2023
12:26:58 PM
