Devendra Narayan Tripathi vs Mohd. Mobeen
2023 Latest Caselaw 4449 MP

                                                      1
                           IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                            ON THE 21 st OF MARCH, 2023
                                          SECOND APPEAL No. 2336 of 2018

                          BETWEEN:-
                          DEVENDRA NARAYAN TRIPATHI S/O SUKHEDEO
                          PARASAD TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
                          OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST KHAMHARIA TEHSIL
                          RAGHURAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                          (BY SHRI R.P DUBEY - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    MOHD. MOBEEN S/O SHAN MOHAMMAD, AGED
                                ABOUT   40   YEARS, BHATANWARA TEHSIL
                                UCHEHARA DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    MOHD. NAEEM S/O SHAN MOHAMMAD, AGED
                                ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O BHATANWARA, TAHSIL
                                UCHEHARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    MOHD. KALEEM S/O SHAN MOHD., AGED ABOUT
                                32 YEARS, R/O NAZEERABAD, SATNA TAHSIL
                                RAGHURAJ NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    RAFEEZAN BEGUM W/O SHAN MOHD., AGED
                                ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O BHATANWARA, TAHSIL
                                UCHEHARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    MOHD. ZAHOOR S/O SHEIKH MUNEER BAKSHA,
                                AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O KHAMHARIA,
                                TEHSIL RAGHURAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.    MOHD. RAJJAK S/O MOHD. SHEIKH MUNNER,
                                AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O KHAMHARIA,
                                TEHSIL RAGHURAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          7.    MOHD. MURAD S/O MOHD. DILDAR, AGED
                                ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O JAITWARA TAHSIL
                                BIRSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 3/23/2023
1:38:21 PM
                                                                 2
                          8.       MOHD. SHAREEF S/O MOHD. DILDAR, AGED
                                   ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O KHAMHARIYA, TAHSIL
                                   RAGHURAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          9.       STATE OF MADHYA RPADESH THR. COLLECTOR
                                   DISTT-SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI VINAY SINGH BAGHEL ADVOCATE AND MS. KAMLESH
                          TAMRAKAR, PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT 9/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 challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2018 passed by 7th Additional District

Judge, Satna, District Satna in Civil Appeal No 65-A/2018, affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2018 passed by 9th Civil Judge Class-II, Satna in Civil Suit No. 3600191-A/2016, whereby learned Courts below have dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land Khasra No 757/3 area 0.56 acre i.e. 0.227 hectare situated in Mouza Khamariya, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is owner/bhoomiswami and in possession of the suit land on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 30.01.2005, whereby the predecessor in title of the defendants Shan Mohammad had after receiving entire consideration of Rs.17,000/- sold the land to the plaintiff, and since then the appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the land as owner but learned Courts below have erred in holding the sale deed (Bechinama) dated 30.01.2005 (Ex. P/12) to be not proved. He further submits that learned Courts below have not properly Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 3/23/2023 1:38:21 PM

appreciated the evidence of plaintiff's witnesses. Accordingly, he prays for admission of the second appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1-8 supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below and prays for dismissal of the second appeal.

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

5. The document of sale dated 30.01.2005 (Ex. P/12) is on a Stamp of Rs.5/-, whereby the land in question is said to have been transferred after payment of entire consideration of Rs.17,000/-, therefore, the same is required to be registered compulsorily, as has been held by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Natthu Khan Vs. Komal and Others 2010 (II) MPWN 4. As such in light of this judgment, the document of sale dated 30.01.2005 is not admissible in evidence for any purpose, which has rightly been held to be not proved also.

6. Learned Courts below after having considered the material oral as well as documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land, and also held that the defendants are in possession.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the finding on the question of title of the plaintiff and possession is pure finding of fact, which is not liable to be interfered in the limited of scope of second appeal.

8. Resultantly, the second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 3/23/2023 1:38:21 PM

[email protected]

Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT HUSSAIN Signing time: 3/23/2023 1:38:21 PM