Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Narayan Rawat vs Smt. Archana Pateriya 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. 644 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
SHIV NARAYAN RAWAT S/O LATE RAMGOPAL RAWAT,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O
BEHIND SHANKAR TALKIES ,B.D.AGRAWAL WARD
KATNI TAHSIL MUDWARA DISTRICT KATNI (M P)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI J.L. MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. ARCHANA PATERIYA W/O SANJAY
PATERIYA D/O LATE DEVENDRA NATH DUBEY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE R/O KHAMHARIYA RAHLI, DISTT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPRETENDENT NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM KATNI
KATNI DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM THROUGH
COM M I S S I ON ER KATNI DISTRICT KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS )
This appeal coming on for admission, this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2021 passed by X Additional
District Judge, Katni in RCA No.98/2018 reversing the judgment and decree
dated 03.07.2018 passed by III Civil Judge, Class I, Katni in Civil Suit
No.1000056A/2012 whereby trial Court decreed the appellant/plaintiff's suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of house No.253 situated
in Tahsil Mudwara, which in civil appeal filed by the respondent/defendant
No.1, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that although the plaintiff
is biological father of defendant No.1-Smt. Archana Pateriya but she was
treated as his daughter by plaintiff's brother-in-law Devendra Nath and his wife
Shantidevi and after death of Devendra Nath and Smt. Shanti Devi, the
defendant No.1-Smt. Archana Pateriya received their entire movable and
immovable property, therefore, she is not entitled for any share in the suit
house/property, which was purchased by plaintiff - Shiv Narayan in the name of
his wife Smt. Rama Devi vide registered sale deed dated 20.03.1971 (Ex. D-1),
who had died on 14.05.1973.
3. Learned counsel submits that trial Court after taking into consideration the
entire material available on record, decreed the suit holding the plaintiff to be
exclusive owner and in possession of the house in question, but first appellate
Court has without taking into consideration the same, dismissed the suit.With
the aforesaid submissions, he prays for admission of the Second Appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
5. Perusal of the record shows that out of wedlock of plaintiff - Shivnarayan
and his wife Smt. Rama Devi, the defendant No.1, Smt. Archana Pateriya was
born, therefore, she is biological daughter of plaintiff - Shivnarayan.
6. Perusal of the plaint shows that there is no plea to the effect that defendant
No.1-Smt. Archana Pateriya went in adoption of Devendra Nath and Shanti
Devi. Although, there is some documentary evidence available on record to
show that defendant No.1-Smt. Archana Pateriya was treated as daughter by
Devendra Nath and Shanti Devi and she received the entire property of
Devendra Nath and Shanti Devi, but merely because of receiving the entire
property of Devendra Nath and Shanti Devi by defendant No.1 - Smt. Archana
Pateriya, it cannot be said that she was adopted by them and is not entitled to
succeed the property left by her biological mother Smt. Rama Devi.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, first
appellate Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the suit.
8. Accordingly, 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
veni
