Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravishankar Chouksey vs Jagdish Chouksey on 12 May, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 12 th OF MAY, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 692 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAVISHANKAR CHOUKSEY S/O LATE NARMADA
PRASAD CHOUKSEY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND BUSINESSMAN,
R/O CHIKMANGLOOR SQUARE, SALICHOUKA, TEHSIL
GADARWARA, NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.P. KHARE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. JAGDISH CHOUKSEY S/O LATE NARMADA
PRASAD CHOUKSEY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O
PANAGAR, TEHSIL GADARWARA DISTRICT
NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
2. UMAKANT S/O NARMADA PRASAD CHOUKSEY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O DUNGARIA TEHSIL
GADARWARA DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
3. GANESH CHOUKSEY S/O LATE NARMADA
PRASAD CHOUKSEY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O
DUNGARIA TEHSIL GADARWARA DISTRICT
NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
4. DEVENDRA CHOUKSEY S/O LATE NARMADA
PRASAD CHOUKSEY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O
PANAGAR TEHSIL GADARWARA DISTRICT
NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
5. ARVIND CHOUKSEY S/O LATE NARMADA PRASAD
CHOUKSEY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O
PANAGAR TEHSIL GADARWARA DISTRICT
NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
6. MUKESH CHOUKSEY S/O LATE MAHESH
CHOUKSEY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O
SALICHOUKA TEHSIL GADARWARA DISTRICT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 5/13/2023
4:22:09 PM
2
NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
7. RAKESH CHOUKSEY S/O LATE MAHESH
CHOUKSEY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O
SALICHOUKA TEHSIL GADARWARA DISTRICT
NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
8. SMT. SUDHA @ KASHI BAI W/O LATE MAHESH
CHOUKSEY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O
SALICHOUKA TEHSIL GADARWARA DISTRICT
NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
9. SMT. JYOTI D/O LATE MAHESH CHOUKSEY, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O BHAURA DISTRICT BETUL
(M.P.)
10. SMT. AARTI D/O LATE MAHESH CHOUKSEY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O HATHWAS ROAD
PIPARIYA DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)
11. SMT. VIDYA BAI D/O LATE NARMADA PRASAD
CHOUKSEY W/O SHRI RAMNARAYAN CHOUKSEY,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O SAIKHEDA TEHSIL
GADARWARA DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
12. SMT. SHAIL VIJORIA D/O LATE NARMADA
PRASAD CHOUKSEY W/O LATE LAKHAN LAL
VIJOR IA R/O RAM NAGAR COLONY VIJORIA
VIDYA MANDIR KHANDWA (M.P.)
13. SMT. REKHA W/O SURENDRA CHOUKSEY, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, NOT MENTION (M.P.)
14. SMT. SHASHI BAI W/O JAGDISH CHOUKSEY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O DUGARIA TEHSIL
GADARWARA DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
15. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SMT. SONALI BISWAS - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
NO.16/STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 5/13/2023
4:22:09 PM
This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16.12.2021 passed
by Fourth District Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in RCA No.25/2014
confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2014 passed by First
Additional Civil Judge, Class - II, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in Civil Suit
No.42-A/2013, whereby the suit for declaration, partition and permanent
injunction in relation to disputed properties situated in village Dungaria and
Panagar was rejected.
2. This appeal has been preferred on the facts that the suit property was
the ancestral property of appellant/plaintiff, but under the alleged
settlement/partition deed no land has been allotted to him while his share was
1/10th in the disputed property. Further, the property of Survey No.528/6
situated in village Dungaria and Survey No.226/2 situated in village Panagar were
the joint family property purchased from the joint family income, but the Courts
below failed to appreciate the evidence on this.
3. The grounds raised in this second appeal are that respondents/defendants
did not specifically deny the averments made in the plaint; they never claimed
that the disputed properties recorded in the name of Rekha and Shashi were
purchased by them or were their self acquired properties; the alleged settlement
deed was wrongly presumed to be a memorandum of partition; it was not
properly stamped, hence was not admissible in evidence. It is, therefore,
prayed that the second appeal be admitted for final hearing.
4. Heard learned counsel for appellants on the point of admission and
perused the records.
5. The judgment delivered by the first appellate Court reflects that all the
grounds raised before this Court were also pleaded before the learned first
appellate Court. The nature of Ex.D-3, i.e. memorandum of partition was
discussed by both the Courts below on the basis of evidence advanced by both
the parties. The factum of self acquired nature of the properties recorded in the
name of Rekha and Shashi was also discussed on the basis of evidence
available on record. The legal perspective was also considered by the first
appellate Court in the context of pleading made by the appellant regarding the
ancestral nature of these properties. Both the Courts below have considered at
length the implication of settlement-deed admittedly signed by the appellant.
6. Case laws cited by the appellant/ plaintiff reported in 1988 RN 302
(Mangilal vs. Sanvant and another), 1988 RN 303 (Nagar Palika
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 5/13/2023
4:22:09 PM
Parishad, Guna v. Suresh Chand Goyal) and I.L.R. [2009] M.P. 2623
(Choudhary Chhatarsingh (dead) and ors. vs. Smt. Harsh Kumar & ors.
have no relevance on the factual matrix of this case. The settlement deed in this
case is signed and consented upon by the present appellant/plaintiff, hence he is
not at liberty to challenge the partition on the ground of unequal distribution of
the property.
7. In the light of concurrent finding of Courts below which have been given
after discussion of material facts available on record and correct application of
concerned legal principles, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in
the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court.
Resultantly, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal.
8. This second appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed without any
order as to costs.
Interim application, if any, shall stand dismissed.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
rv
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 5/13/2023
4:22:09 PM
