Mohanlal vs Lalanram
2023 Latest Caselaw 4014 MP

                                                             1
                             IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                 ON THE 14 th OF MARCH, 2023
                                                SECOND APPEAL No. 383 of 2018

                            BETWEEN:-
                            MOHANLAL S/O PURCHUL YADAV, AGED ABOUT 54
                            Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                            BARGAWAN POST BARGAWAN P.S. BARGAWAN
                            (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANT
                            (BY SHRI ANIRUDDH PRASAD SHAH, ADVOCATE)

                            AND
                            1.    LALANRAM S/O DADERAM BRAHMNA, AGED
                                  ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                  VILLAGE BARGAWAN POST AND P.S. BARGAWAN
                                  (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            2.    MUNNILAL S/O DADERAM BRAHMAN, AGED
                                  ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BARGAWAN,
                                  POST AND P.S.BARGAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS


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

This second appeal has been preferred by defendant-Mohanlal challenging the judgment & decree dtd. 05.12.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Deosar, District Singrauli in Civil Appeal No. 123-A/2014 affirming the judgment & decree dtd. 28.10.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge Class-1, Deosar, District Singrauli in Civil Suit No. 72-A/2012 whereby

Signature Not Verified learned Courts below have decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs filed Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 3/15/2023 2:46:43 PM

for permanent injunction in respect of land khasra No.231/4 area 0.379 hectare (0.93 acre) situated in Village Bargawan, Tahsil Deosar and dismissed the counter claim filed by the appellant/defendant holding the plaintiffs to be owner and in possession of the suit land.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sale deed in question dtd. 21.08.1974 (Ex.P/1) was got executed by the plaintiffs fraudulently even without making any payment of consideration and the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land but the defendant is in possession. He further submits that immediately after execution of sale deed, mutation was not done and learned Courts below have erred in dismissing the

counter claim on the ground of insufficiency of Court fees even without giving any opportunity to make the deficiency good. Accordingly, he prays for admission of the second appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

4. On the basis of registered sale deed dtd. 21.08.1974 (Ex.P/1) executed by Purchul Yadav in favour of Sardaram, Babuaram and Lalanram, the plaintiffs instituted the suit for permanent injunction claiming themselves to be in possession of the suit land. In turn, the defendant filed written statement as well as counter claim. However, no valuation in respect of consideration of sale deed has been done and no ad valorem Court fee has been paid for the purpose of challenging the sale deed.

5. Learned Courts below after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence have held that the sale deed was executed by father of appellant Purchul Yadav and in pursuance of the sale deed, the name of plaintiffs was mutated and accordingly they are owner/bhoomiswami and in possession of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 3/15/2023 2:46:43 PM

suit land.

6. Learned Courts below have not left any evidence from consideration and from perusal of the record there does not appear any perversity in the findings recorded by learned Courts below.

7. The findings in respect of fraud and physical possession, are pure findings of fact, which are not liable to be interfered with in the limited scope of second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

8. Resultantly, the instant second appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC without any order as to costs.

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE Pallavi

Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 3/15/2023 2:46:43 PM