Sajjan Singh vs Rajpal Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4364 MP

                                                            1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                               ON THE 20 th OF MARCH, 2023
                                             SECOND APPEAL No. 1972 of 2018

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SAJJAN SINGH S/O SHRI KAPOOR SINGH, AGED ABOUT
                          63 YEARS, LIDHOURA TEHSIL LIDHOURA (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                          (BY SHRI P.K. NAVERIYA-ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PRAKHAR NAVERIYA-
                          ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    RAJPAL SINGH S/O SHRI VAHODAN SINGH, AGED
                                ABOUT 45 YEARS, LIDHOURA TEHSIL LIDHOURA
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    RAJENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI BHAGWANT SINGH,
                                AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, JATARA TEH. JATARA
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    SAMPADA  ADHIKARI,   STATE OF  M.P.
                                COLLECTOR DISTT. TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          4.    GAJENDRA SINGH S/O LATE SHRI MAHARAJ
                                SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, LIDHOURA TEH.
                                LIDHOURA DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY MS. KAMLESH TAMRAKAR-PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
                          3/STATE )

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

This second appeal has been preferred by appellant/plaintiff 1 challenging

Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 3/21/2023 10:56:40 AM

the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2018 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Jatara, District Tikamgarh in Civil Appeal No. 54-A/2017 affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2017 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class-I, Jatara, District Tikamgarh in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2017, whereby suit filed by the appellant and respondent 4 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaring the sale deed dated 28.09.2005 and 09.05.2008 to be null and void filed in respect of land khasra nos.2179/2/6/1 and 2179/2/6/2 total area 0.280 hectare situated in Kasba and Tahsil Lidhora, District Tikamgarh, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts below

have not properly considered the evidence of the plaintiffs adduced to the effect that the defendant 2 Rajendra Singh got executed the sale deed on 28.09.2005 (Ex.D/1) fraudulently without making payment of consideration and the defendants have failed to prove due execution of sale deed and payment of consideration. He further submits that the defendant 2 has thereafter executed sale deed on 09.05.2008 (Ex.D/2) in favour of defendant 1 Rajpal Singh. He also submits that the plaintiff/appellant is still in possession of the suit land and learned Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit.

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

4. Perusal of record shows that learned Courts below have duly considered the oral and documentary evidence and found that the sale deed was executed in favour of defendant 2 Rajendra Singh by appellant and respondent 4's father Maharaj Singh and Rajpal Singh after making payment of consideration and the plaintiffs have failed to prove the plea of fraud taken by them. It is also clear that for challenging the sale deeds dated 28.09.2005 and 09.05.2008, the suit has been filed on 26.11.2015, which is clearly beyond limitation of three years. After Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 3/21/2023 10:56:40 AM

due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, learned Courts below have also held that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit lands.

5. Accordingly, the findings of fraud and physical possession on the suit land being pure findings of fact, are not liable to be interfered with in the limited scope of Section 100 of CPC, therefore, this second appeal having found no involvement of substantial question of law, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE sh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 3/21/2023 10:56:40 AM