Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sagun Singh vs Laxman on 31 March, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
1 SECOND APPEAL No. 109 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 31st OF MARCH, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 109 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SAGUN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI RAMSEVAK, AGED ABOUT 48
1. YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NICHRAULI, THASIL KARERA,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
CHARAN SINGH S/O LATE RAMSEVAK, AGED ABOUT 44
2. YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NICHRAULI, TEHSIL KARERA,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
MANOJ KUMAR S/O LATE RAMSEVAK, AGED ABOUT 41
3. YEARS, R/O VILLAGE NICHRAULI, TEHSIL KARERA,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
LAKHAN S/O LALARAM GADARIYA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
4. R/O VILLAGE TODA, KARERA, TEHSIL KARERA, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SIRNAM S/O LALARAM GADARIYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
5. R/O VILLAGE TODA, KARERA, TEHSIL KARERA, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SHIVCHARAN S/O LALARAM GADARIYA, AGED ABOUT 36
6. YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TODA, KARERA, TEHSIL KARERA,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAMSINGH S/O LALARAM GADARIYA, AGED ABOUT 34
7. YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TODA, KARERA, TEHSIL KARERA,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SITARAM S/O LALARAM GADARIYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 4/6/2023
5:58:12 PM
2 SECOND APPEAL No. 109 of 2023
R/O VILLAGE TODA, KARERA, TEHSIL KARERA, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
MALKHAN SINGH S/O BHAGWAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE TODA KARERA, TEHSIL KARERA,
9.
MAJRA MANGALPURA, TEHSIL KARERA, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
YASHPAL SINGH S/O BHAGWAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE TODA KARERA, TEHSIL KARERA, MAJRA
10.
MANGALPURA, TEHSIL KARERA, DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
HEERA LAL S/O BHAGWAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE TODA KARERA, TEHSIL KARERA, MAJRA
11.
MANGALPURA, TEHSIL KARERA, DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
RAVI S/O BHAGWAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE TODA KARERA, TEHSIL KARERA, MAJRA
12.
MANGALPURA, TEHSIL KARERA, DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
GULUA S/O JAGATA JATAV, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O
13. VILLAGE TODA, KARERA, TEHSIL KARERA, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(MR. SOMNATH SETH - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)
AND
LAXMAN S/O LATE SHRI SIRIYA ALIAS SHREELAL JATAV,
1. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE, KODRA, RAMPURI
THASIL KARERA, DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAMKESH S/O LATE SIRIYA ALIAS SHREELAL JATAV, AGED
2. ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE, KODRA, RAMPURI THASIL
KARERA, DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
MAHILA BATI W/O LATE SIRIYA ALIAS SHREELAL JATAV,
3. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE, KODRA, RAMPURI
THASIL KARERA, DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MAHILA DHANBANTI W/O SHRI OM SHARAN JATAV, R/O
VILLAGE BAMER, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT JHANSI (UTTAR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 4/6/2023
5:58:12 PM
3 SECOND APPEAL No. 109 of 2023
PRADESH)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.
.....RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS
RABUDI W/O LATE GOVINDAS JATAV, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE RAMNAGAR
6.
GHADHAI, NEAR CANAL, TEHSIL NARWAR, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SHIVKUMAR S/O LATE GOVINDAS JATAV, AGED ABOUT 38
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE
7.
RAMNAGAR GHADHAI, NEAR CANAL, TEHSIL NARWAR,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUNIL S/O LATE GOVINDAS JATAV, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE RAMNAGAR
8.
GHADHAI, NEAR CANAL, TEHSIL NARWAR, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
MAHILA RAMRATI W/O LATE DILLA JATAV, AGED ABOUT 78
9. YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DAILY, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT JHANSI
(UTTAR PRADESH)
GIRVAR S/O LATE DILLA JATAV, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O
10. NEAR NEW HOSPITAL BHAWAN, KARERA, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
MANGI LAL S/O LATE DILLA JATAV, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
11. R/O VILLAGE DAILY, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT JHANSI (UTTAR
PRADESH)
RAMESH S/O LATE DILLA JATAV, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O
12.
NEAR AARA MACHINE, JHANSI (UTTAR PRADESH)
VINOD S/O LATE DILLA JATAV, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O
13. VILLAGE DAILY, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT JHANSI (UTTAR
PRADESH)
.....PROFORMA
RESPONDENTS
( MR. NIRMAL SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.5/STATE)
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 4/6/2023
5:58:12 PM
4 SECOND APPEAL No. 109 of 2023
passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Present second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been
filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2022 passed by
Ist District Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri (M.P.) in Civil Appeal
No. RCA/05/2022 affirming the judgment and decree dated
22.12.2021 passed by the IInd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karera,
District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.125-A/2014.
2. Factual matrix of the case in brief are that the predecessor of
respondents No.1 to 4 i.e. Siriya @ Shreelal filed a civil suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction against the
appellants/defendants before the trial Court which was registered as
Civil Suit No. 125-A/2014 with the allegations that the land bearing
Survey Nos. 538 area 0.52 Hectare, 742 area 1.06 Hectare situated
in Village Toda Karera, Tahsil, Karera, District Shivpuri have been
encroached by the defendants/appellants which have been obtained
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 4/6/2023
5:58:12 PM
by him through Patta dated 24.11.1973 from the then Tahsildar and
thereafter on 13th of November, 1984 and has acquired by the
plaintiff under Bhumiswami right. On the basis of Patta and after
obtaining Bhumiswami right, he be declared title holder and
possession holder of the disputed agricultural land and prayed for
declaration of title in his favour and delivery of possession was also
demanded along with setting aside the compromise decree obtained
by the appellants/defendants in Civil Suit No. 42-A/1990 by Civil
Judge, Class-I, Karera, District Shivpuri.
3. The aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiff has been contested by
the appellants/defendants and it was pleaded by the
appellants/defendants in their written statement that the aforesaid
suit has been filed in the year 2014 having no locus standi and is
baseless because the earlier civil suit filed by the
appellants/defendants has been compromised by the Court of
competent jurisdiction and that compromise decree has not been
challenged within the period of limitation and on the basis of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 4/6/2023
5:58:12 PM
compromise decree entered into between Siriya and the appellants
has attained finality due to passing of limitation period. It was
further pleaded that the compromise decree passed in civil suit
No.42-A/1990 has attained finality and after a period of 24 years
from the compromise decree, the instant suit has been filed which is
not maintainable and is hopelessly barred by limitation. Hence, the
suit filed by the plaintiff-Shriya be quashed.
4. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court framed as many
as eight issues and recorded evidence led by both the parties. After
hearing arguments and having considered the legal position, learned
trial Court allowed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated
22.12.2021.
5. Against the said judgment and decree dated 22.12.2021, the
defendants/appellants preferred a civil appeal before the first
appellate Court and learned first Appellate Court heard the
arguments and dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and
decree passed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 4/6/2023
5:58:12 PM
decree dated 13.12.2022, against which, present second appeal has
been filed before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that judgment and
decree passed by the Courts below are manifest illegal, contrary to
law and record and are also against the well settled principles of
law, therefore, are liable to be set aside. It is further argued that
learned Courts below have committed grave error of law in setting
aside the compromise decree passed by the Court of competent
jurisdiction. It is further argued that both the Courts below have
committed grave error of law in decreeing the suit which was filed
by the plaintiff-Siriya after a period of 24 years from the date of
compromise decree entered into between the rival parties. This
factor has totally been ignored by the learned Courts below. It is
further argued that the judgment and decree passed by both the
Courts below are illegal due to reasons that the period for limitation
for recovery of possession is three years, while in the present case
on the strength of compromise decree passed in Civil Suit No.42-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 4/6/2023
5:58:12 PM
A/1990 by Court of competent jurisdiction on 11.05.1990, the
appellants accrued their right, title and interest in the property and
are having possession since then. Inspite of it, the present suit has
been filed in the year 2014 i.e. after a period of 24 years which is
hopelessly barred by time. It is further argued that learned courts
below have also ignored the fact that appellants/defendants are in
possession since 11.05.1990 in the property in question and there
was no cause of action in the year 2018.
7. It is further argued that both the courts below also ignored the
fact that the sale deeds executed by the plaintiff in favour of
defendants No. 1 to 3 & 4 to 12 and without any rhyme and reason,
appellants were declared illegal possession holders. In such
circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants prayed
for quashment of judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts
below.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the
record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 4/6/2023
5:58:12 PM
9. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that it is an
undisputed fact that the disputed land was given to plaintiff-Siriya
@ Shrilal on the basis of Patta vide order dated 24.11.1973 and in
support of his contention, plaintiff has filed Ex. P/1. Both the courts
below have not only considered the pleadings and evidence of
appellants/defendants in respect to the alleged decree of
compromise and the entries of possession in the revenue records
and gave their impeccable findings about these issues. The findings
about the ownership of plaintiffs are not only based on the factum
of alleged decree of compromise but are also based on other
evidence and legal aspects such as the right to transfer of land
which was obtained by the patta.
10. Keeping in mind the above and having gone through the
judgments passed by the learned courts below, it is apparent that the
learned trial Court on the basis of appreciation of oral as well as the
documentary evidence decreed the suit in favour of the
respondents/plaintiffs. The learned trial court has observed that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 4/6/2023
5:58:12 PM
defendants had failed to prove in earlier civil suit that any
compromise in respect to disputed premises was executed between
appellants/defendants and plaintiff-Siriya @ Shrilal. The learned
trial court has also observed that the defendants have not filed any
documentary evidence to prove on what basis the entries in revenue
record had been made in respect to possession. The learned trial
court has also discussed in detail the unchallenged evidence of the
plaintiffs while decreeing the suit.
11. The First Appellate Court reconsidered the entire evidence
and discussed the same for its judgment from para 08 to 32 and
found that no illegality has been committed by the learned trial
Court while allowing the suit. The court also discussed the legal
issue raised in respect to the alleged decree of compromise.
12. Upon perusal of the judgment and decree of the Courts below
and the arguments advanced, the appeal is found to be devoid of
any substance because in the opinion of this court, entire gamut of
the matter is in the realm of facts of the case. Both the Courts below
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 4/6/2023
5:58:12 PM
have recorded impeccable findings based on proper appreciation of
evidence on record. No question of law much less substantial
question of law arises warranting interference under Section 100 of
CPC.
13. Consequently, this second appeal sans merit and is hereby
dismissed at admission stage.
(Sunita Yadav)
Judge
LJ*
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LOKENDRA JAIN
Signing time: 4/6/2023
5:58:12 PM
