Radhelal vs Anmi Bai & Anr.
2023 Latest Caselaw 16648 MP

                                                             1
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                               SECOND APPEAL No. 644 of 2005

                            BETWEEN:-
                            1.     RADHELAL    (DEAD)         THROUGH        LEGAL
                                   REPRESENTATIVE

                            1A).   LALDAS S/O LATE RADHELAL, AGED ABOUT 57
                                   YE A R S , TENDUMAR MOHTRA P.S. SHAHPUR
                                   (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                            (BY SHRI ARVIND SINGH TOMAR, ADVOCATE)

                            AND
                            1.     AMMI    BAI   (DEAD)          THROUGH     LEGAL
                                   REPESENTATIVES

                            1(A). MR. GULPAT DAS MASHRAM S/O S/O PREMA
                                  PANKA @ PREM LAL PANIKA, AGED ABOUT 38
                                  YEAR S , VILLAGE TENDUMAR MOHATRA P.S.
                                  SHAHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            1(B). SMT. INDRA BAI W/O SAKUR DAS, AGED ABOUT
                                  40 YEARS, VILLAGE TENDMAR MOHATRA P.S.
                                  SHAHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                  SUMANTRA BAI (DELETED)
                            2.
                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS


                                   This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                            following:
                                                              ORDER

This second appeal is preferred by appellant/defendant 1 Radhelal (now LR) challenging the judgment & decree dtd. 04.01.2005 passed by Additional

Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 10/10/2023 2:30:23 PM

District Judge, Dindori in Civil Appeal No. 28-A/2002 affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 31.07.2002 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Dindori in Civil Suit No. 101A/94 whereby learned Courts below have decreed the respondent 1/plaintiff-Ammi Bai's (now LRs) suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that original appellant- Radhelal's mother Mukhiya Bai was wife of Guhra and she from her self acquired money purchased the suit property in the name of Guhra. Although after death of Mukhiya Bai, Guhra kept Sumantra Bai (defendant 2) as his wife and Ammi Bai (who is daughter of Sumantra Bai), but after death of Guhra, the

name of defendant 1 Radhelal was also mutated in the revenue record alongwith Sumantra Bai and Ammi Bai, but learned both the Courts below have, without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter coupled with the revenue entries placed on record as Ex. D/1-D/3, decreed the suit. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays or admission of the second appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

4. Learned Courts below have, on the basis of documentary evidence as well as the admissions made by the defendant 1-Radhelal, held that the land in question belonged to Guhra and the defendant 2 Mst. Sumantra Bai was wife of Guhra and Ammi Bai is daughter of Sumantra. Further, in his lifetime, Guhra executed a registered Will also on 15.04.1987 (Ex.P/1), which has also been found proved by learned Courts below. The defendant 1 Radhelal has also admitted that a Will was executed by Guhra in favour of Ammi Bai and he did not raise any objection about execution of the Will.

5. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts and in absence of any documentary evidence/order of the competent revenue authority regarding mutation of name Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 10/10/2023 2:30:23 PM

of the defendant 1-Radhelal, the mutation of his name does not confer any rights on him. The plaintiff and defendant 2 Mst. Sumantra are successors of deceased Guhra as per the Hindu Succession Act as well as on the basis of Will executed by Guhra in respect of his property.

6. Upon perusal of the entire record available, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below.

7. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE Pallavi

Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Signing time: 10/10/2023 2:30:23 PM