Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laliya Bai vs Falli Bai on 29 November, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 29 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 1628 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. LALIYA BAI D/O JUNHU SINGH GOND, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
VILLAGE KOHKA POORVA POLICE STATION
RAJENDRA GRAM TEH. PUSHPRAJGARH
DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHHOTI BAI D/O JONHU SONGH GOND, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O
VILLAGE KOHKA POORVA POLICE STATION
RAJENDRA GRAM TEHSIL PUSHPRAJGARH
DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI MOHD. SHAFIQULLAH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. FALLI BAI D/O BESAHU SINGH GOND, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, BANDHAMAR POLICE STATION
RAJENDRA GRAM TEHSIKL PUSHPRAJGARH
DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHYAMVATI BAI D/O BESAHU SINGH GOND,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O NOGAI POLICE
STATION RAJENDRA GRAM TEHSIL
PUSHPRAJGARH DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. VISHVAMOHANI BAI D/O BESAHU SINGH GOND,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O SHIVRICHANDASH
POLICE STATION RAJENDRA GRAM TEHSIL
PUSHPRAJGARH DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DEELAN SINGH S/O BHOLI SINGH GOND, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KOHKA POORVA
POLICE STATION RAJENDRA GRAM TEHSIL
PUSHPRAJGARH DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 11/30/2023
10:04:00 AM
2
PRADESH)
5. SHYAMA BAI W/O BHOLI SINGH GOND, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KOHKA POORVA
POLICE STATION RAJENDRA GRAM TEHSIL
PUSHPRAJGARH DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. SURESH S/O JONHU SINGH GOND, AGED ABOUT
38 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KOHKA POORVA POLICE
STATION RAJENDRA GRAM TEHSIL
PUSHPRAJGARH DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR DISTRICT ANOOPPUR (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SARSWATI BADGAIYA - PANEL LAWYER FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2022 passed by District Judge,
Rajendra Gram, District Anuppur in RCA No.6-A/2019 affirming the judgment
and decree dated 31.01.2019 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Rajendra Gram,
District Anuppur in Civil Suit No.28-A/2017 whereby Courts below have
dismissed the appellants/plaintiffs' suit filed for declaration of title, permanent
injunction and for partition of disputed agricultural lands claiming their 1/5 - 1/5
share each through their father Jonhu Singh Gond.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the
agricultural land in question belonged to father Jonhu Singh Gond who died
leaving behind him his wife Birasiya Bai (now dead), daughters Laliya Bai and
Chhoti Bai (plaintiffs) and three sons, namely Besahu Singh, Bholi Singh and
Suresh Singh, therefore, after death of father- Jonhu Singh Gond, the plaintiffs
and other three brothers all are having 1/5 - 1/5 share each in the suit property
and are entitled for partition. He further submits that Courts below have without
there being any document of partition of the land in question erred in holding
that partition took place even in the lifetime of father Jonhu Singh Gond. With
the aforesaid submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
4. By filing written statement the defendants 1-5 took plea that partition
had taken place in the lifetime of father, in which he gave his entire land to three
sons and according to such partition all the three sons are in cultivating
possession of the land and the plaintiffs have no right in the suit property.
5. The plaintiff - Laliya Bai has been examined as PW-1, who in para 8, 9
& 10 of her cross-examination, has clearly admitted that partition was done
previously and according to the partition, entire land was given by father to the
three sons and they are in cultivating possession of the land according to their
shares. She further admitted that she did not raise any dispute about the land for
last 40 years.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid admissions made by plaintiff -
Laliya Bai, learned Courts below have found that partition had taken place and
now again the partition cannot be done.
7. So far as the argument of non availability of document of partition is
concerned, both the Courts below have relied upon the legally permissible plea
of oral partition taken by the defendants 1-5, which has also been admitted by
the plaintiff - Laliya Bai, therefore, in my considered opinion learned Courts
below have not committed any illegality in dismissing the suit.
8. As such in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
