Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gulab Chand Jain & Ors. vs Kanchedi Lal & Ors. on 16 October, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 16 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 566 of 1999
BETWEEN:-
1. GULAB CHAND JAIN, S/O LATE DHARMCHAND
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION -
BUSSINESS, R/O 994, RAM MANOHAR LOHIA
WARD, MACHHARHAI, JABALPUR (M.P)
2. TIRLOKCHAND S/O LATE DHARAMCHAND JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION - BUSINESS
R/O 940 LORDGANJ JABALPUR (M.P)
3. MUNENDRA KUMAR ALIAS SUNENDRA KUMAR
S/O LATE DHARAMCHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, R/O 940 LORDGANJ JABALPUR (M.P)
4. SMT. VIDYABAI W/O KAMAL KUMAR JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O KADELI NARSINGHPUR
(M.P)
5. SMT. SHASHIBAI W/O VIJAY KUMAR JAIN R/O
FORD ROAD REWA (M.P)
6. SMT. SHAKUNBAI W/O JAI KUMAR JAIN R/O
CHHAPARA DISTRICT SEONI (M.P)
7. SMT. AASHA BAI W/O SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN R/O
DESHBANDHU WARD GONDIYA (M.P)
8. SMT. KIRANBAI W/O JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN R/O
GANDHI CHOWK JALGAON (M.P)
9. SMT. MAYABAI W/O ANIL KUMAR NAYAK
OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE R/O PATAN JABALPUR
(M.P)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SACHIN JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/18/2023
10:33:44 AM
2
1 . KANCHEDILAL S/O LAXMAN, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, GRAM PIPARIYA POST BAGHRAJI TEH AND
DSITT JABALPUR (M.P)
2. GUMNILAL S/O SHRI LAXMAN, AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS, R/O GRAM- PIPARIYA, POST- PIPARIYA, TAH.-
KUNDAM, JABALPUR (M.P)
3. SURENDRA KUMAR S/O SHRI LAXMAN, AGED
ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O GRAM- PIPARIYA, POST-
PIPARIYA, TAH.- KUNDAM, JABALPUR (M.P)
4. SMT. SUKKOOBAI W/O LATE SHRI LAXMAN, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O GRAM- PIPARIYA, POST-
PIPARIYA, TAH.- KUNDAM, JABALPUR
(M.P)
5 . SMT. GOURABAI W/O LATE SHRI PREETAMLAL
RAJAK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O GRAM- AMARIYA,
P.S. PANAGAR, JABALPUR (M.P)
6 . SMT. CHHOTIBAI W/O SHRI GANGA PRASAD, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O GHUGHARI, P.S. MAJHOLI, TAH.-
SIHORA, JABALPUR (M.P)
7 . LILLI S/O SHRI SUKKA RAJAK, AGED ABOUT 54
YEARS, R/O GRAM PIPARIYA, POST- BAGHRAJI, TAH.-
JABALPUR (M.P)
8 . KHUSHILAL S/O SHRI SUMMA RAJAK, AGED ABOUT
47 YEARS, R/O GRAM PIPARIYA, POST- BAGHRAJI,
TAH.- JABALPUR (M.P)
9 . HARCHAT S/O SHRI SUMMA RAJAK, AGED ABOUT
47 YEARS, R/O GRAM PIPARIYA, POST- BAGHRAJI,
TAH.- JABALPUR (M.P)
1 0 . ARJAN S/O SHRI JIYALAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, R/O GRAM PIPARIYA, POST- BAGHRAJI, TAH.-
JABALPUR (M.P)
11 . SECRETARY M.P. STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT
THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTT. JABALPUR (M.P)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/18/2023
10:33:44 AM
challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.12.1998 passed by 11 th
Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal
No.14-A/1995 affirming the judgement and decree dated 03.01.1995 passed by
2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.71-A/1993 whereby learned
Courts below have dismissed plaintiff/appellants' suit filed simplicitor for
restoration of possession in respect of agricultural land Survey Nos.367, 368 &
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the original
plaintiff namely, Dharam Chand Jain (since dead through LRs) instituted a suit
for restoration of possession of land Survey Nos. 367, 368 & 377 on the
premise that he purchased the land of Survey Nos. 367, 368, 369, 348, 372,
373, 374, 377, 322, 326 & 327 total area 3 hectare vide registered sale deed
dated 11.06.1974 for consideration of Rs.8,000/-, but after sale of the land the
plaintiff was not given possession of the land Survey Nos.367 area 0.384 dismil,
368 area 0.255 dismil and 377 area 0.729 dismil i.e. total area 1.368 hectare,
although remaining land was given in possession of the plaintiff. He further
submits that despite making several requests, the plaintiff was not given
possession and even upon issuance of notice also the plaintiff was not given
possession over the said three survey numbers of the land by the defendants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that despite there
being no rebuttal on the part of the defendants and without taking into
consideration the provisions contained in Article 65 of the Limitation Act,
learned Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit. He further submits that
because there were no clouds over the title of the plaintiffs, therefore, they were
not required to file the suit for declaration of title also. With the aforesaid
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/18/2023
10:33:44 AM
submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the
record.
5. Undisputedly original plaintiff - Dharamchand Jain purchased the land
of aforesaid 11 survey numbers from the defendants vide registered sale deed
dated 11.06.1974 for consideration of Rs.8,000/-, but under what
circumstances the plaintiff was not given possession of the land Survey
Nos.367, 368 & 377 has not been mentioned/established and what prevented
the plaintiff to file the suit or to take action immediately after execution of the
sale deed dated 11.06.1974 or within a period of 12 years. Undisputedly, the
present suit has been filed on 11.06.1986 i.e. after 12 years, which in the light of
provisions contained in Section 27 of the Limitation Act, is clearly barred by
limitation.
6. Learned first appellate Court has also observed that the plaintiff has
not proved the execution of sale deed (Ex.P/1) by examination of the witnesses
to the sale deed namely Mahipal & Harimilan, which is required in the light of
decision of this Court in the case of Rekha Vs. Ratnashree 2006 (2) JLJ
275 (DB).
7. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, this Court does
not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by learned Courts
below.
8. Resultantly, 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/18/2023
10:33:44 AM
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/18/2023
10:33:44 AM
