Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Umashankar Pandey vs Basant Rao Through Legal Heirs ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8461 MP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 8461 MP
Judgement Date : 13 June, 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umashankar Pandey vs Basant Rao Through Legal Heirs ... on 13 June, 2023
Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
                                                                   1
                                        IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                           AT JABALPUR
                                                                BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                                          ON THE 13 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                                       SECOND APPEAL No. 1635 of 2022

                                       BETWEEN:-
                                       1.    UMASHANKAR PANDEY S/O SHRI DWARKA
                                             PRASAD PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O
                                             VILLAGE KHAGAMAU TEHSIL SEHORA DISTRICT-
                                             JABALPUR (M.P.)

                                       2.    RAMASHANKAR PANDEY S/O DWARKA PRASAD
                                             PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                                             KHAGAMAU      TEHSIL  SEHORA    DISTRICT-
                                             JABALPUR (M.P.)

                                       3.    GIRIJA PRASAD PANDEY S/O DWARKA PRASAD
                                             PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O VILLAGE
                                             KHAGAMAU      TEHSIL SEHORA    DISTRICT-
                                             JABALPUR (M.P.)

                                       4.    RAM KUMAR S/O DWARKA PRASAD PANDEY,
                                             AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                                             KHAGAMAU      TEHSIL SEHORA DISTRICT-
                                             JABALPUR (M.P.)

                                       5.    GITABAI PANDEY S/O DWARKA PRASAD PANDEY,
                                             AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                                             KHAGAMAU      TEHSIL  SEHORA    DISTRICT-
                                             JABALPUR (M.P.)

                                       6.    UMA BAI S/O DWARKA PRASAD PANDEY, AGED
                                             ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHAGAMAU
                                             TEHSIL SEHORA DISTRICT- JABALPUR (M.P.)

                                       7.    REKHA BAI PANDEY S/O DWARKA PRASAD
                                             PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                                             KHAGAMAU      TEHSIL  SEHORA    DISTRICT-
                                             JABALPUR (M.P.)

Signature Not Verified
  SAN
                                                                             .....APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS
                                       (BY SHRI SURYA PRAKASH PATHAK - ADVOCATE )
Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL
Date: 2023.06.14 12:02:39 IST

                                       AND
                                                                    2
                                       1.    BASANT RAO S/O LATE SHRI BAPURAM
                                             PALDHIKAR THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
                                             A- YASHOVARDHAN PALDHIKAR S/O BASANT
                                             RAO    PALDHIKAR R/O 535 COD COLONY
                                             ADHARTAL JABALPUR (M.P.)

                                             B- SHASHIBHUHAN PALDHIKAR S/O BASANT RAO
                                             R/O 535 COD COLONY ADHARTAL JABALPUR
                                             (M.P.)

                                             C- SHALINI DATTALKAR S/O BASANT RAO
                                             PALDHIKAR R/O 535 COD COLONY ADHARTAL
                                             JABALPUR (M.P.)

                                       2.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                             COLLECTOR DISTRICT JABALPUR (M.P.)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF
                                       (BY SHRI RAKESH KUMAR KESHARWANI - ADVOCATE )
                                       (BY SHRI ANUBHAV JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
                                       RESPONDENT NO.2/STATE)

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

This appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2022 passed by

learned 3rd District Judge, Sehora, District Jabalpur, in Civil Appeal No.25/2018 arising out of judgment and decree dated 15.10.2018, passed by the Ist Civil Judge Class-II Sehora District Jabalpur in Civil Suit no. 21A/2018, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff has been allowed. Appellants/defendants preferred an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by learned 3rd District Judge, Sehore.

2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit before the learned Civil Judge

Signature Not Verified Class II Sehora for declaration and permanent injunction of the suit land SAN

Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL situated at village Khagamau Khitaula Patwari Halka No.75 Teh Sehore District- Date: 2023.06.14 12:02:39 IST

Jabalpur bearing Khasra No.6 area 2.9 hect., on the ground that he inherited the

suit property from his Uncle, Balkrishna. It was further submitted that one Balkrishna S/o Devraj Paldhikar was unmarried and he was the elder brother of the father of respondent No.1/plaintiff and grandfather of the respondent No.2 and he left home in 1996 and never come back to his home. Thereafter, plaintiff has filed a civil suit for the declaration of civil death that suit was decided on 15.09.2015. It is also submitted that suit land was allotted to Balkrishna Paldhikar by Bhoo Dan Yojna but after the civil death, the plaintiff has filed an application for the mutation of the suit land before Tehsildar Sehore but on that application, appellant/defendant has filed the objection and Tehsildar has mutated the land on the basis of will and passed the order dated 23.08.2017 in favour of present appellants/defendants.

3. The appellants/defendants has also filed written statement before the Civil Judge in Civil suit that the Balkrishna Paldhikar was executed a registered will in favour of the appellant's father Dwarkar Prasad Pandey, who was the disciple of the Balkrishna Paldhikar. It is also submitteed that Balkrishna Paldhikar who was residing with the appellant's father and he was caring of Balkrishna Paldhikar and the registered will in his favour,

4. From a perusal of the record, it is seen that the trial Court has considered the pleadings of the parties and framed the issues on the basis of rival stand. The First Appellate Court also has considered the evidence and materials

available on record.

5. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that plaintiff/respondent has proved their case and found that as per provisions of Madhya Pradesh Signature Not Verified SAN Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1953") the Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2023.06.14 12:02:39 IST person to whom land is allotted, shall not transfer any interest in the land and

rights of the holder shall on his death pass to his heirs. It is found that as per the provisions of the Act, 1953, no will could be executed by the holder. Both the Courts below have concurrently arrived on ever-findings in the light of provisions of Madhya Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953.

6. In view of aforesaid discussion it is not proper and legally justified to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on a pure question of fact. In Second Appeal, the re-appreciation of evidence and interference with the findings of fact is not permissible. This Court can interfere with the concurrent findings only when a Substantial Question of law arises. If the Courts below have neither ignored any material fact, nor has considered any inadmissible evidence, then this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. In these circumstances, the appeal being devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of motion.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE vai

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2023.06.14 12:02:39 IST

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter