Jham Singh vs Surajlal
2023 Latest Caselaw 14577 MP

                                                         1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                           ON THE 5 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                            SECOND APPEAL No. 573 of 2016

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    JHAM SINGH S/O SUKATA GOND, AGED ABOUT 55
                                YEARS, VILLAGE BAMHANI TEH- P.S. BARGHAT
                                DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    DROPATI BAI W/O MEHTAR SINGH GOND, AGED
                                ABOUT 57 YEARS, VILLAGE GONDE GAON TEHSIL
                                KURAI, DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    SURPATI BAI W/O SURULAL, AGED ABOUT 52
                                YEARS, KUDAPOR POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL
                                BARGHAT, DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI R.L. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    SURAJLAL S/O PATANGI GOND, AGED ABOUT 52
                                Y E A R S , VILLAGE BAMHANI THANA TEH-
                                BARGHAT DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    SATISH S/O MEHTAR SINGH GOND, AGED ABOUT
                                39 YEARS, VILLAGE ANTARA THANA TEHSIL
                                BARGHAT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI NARENDRA SINGH LODHI - PANEL LAWYER)

                                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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 9/6/2023 5:24:37 PM

challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2016 passed by First Additional District Judge, Seoni in Civil Appeal No.13-A/2012 affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2011 passed by second Civil Judge Class-I, Seoni in Civil Suit No. 75-A/2010, whereby learned Courts below have dismissed plaintiffs' suit filed for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaring sale deed null and void executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 4.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that there was an oral partition in the family and in that partition the suit lands were given to the plaintiffs. He submits that although Lalti Bai was one of the daughters of late

Kunwar Singh, but she was already given her share in other survey numbers and she has already sold the land of her share, therefore, the partition effected by Tahsildar on 19.09.2007 vide order (Ex.D/8) is null an void and consequently, the sale deed executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 4 is also null and void. He further submits that the learned Courts below have without taking into consideration the admissions made by defendant's witnesses in their testimony regarding sale of the property by Lalti Bai, have passed the impugned judgment and decree. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for admission of second appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the record.

4. Undisputedly, the land in question belonged to Kunwar Singh who was survived by three daughters namely Fago Bai, Mattho Bai and Lalti Bai. The plaintiffs are successors of Mattho Bai and are claiming exclusive rights in the suit property on the basis of oral partition, which has not been found proved by learned Courts below upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 9/6/2023 5:24:37 PM

available on record. It is also one of the fact available on record that the suit land was jointly recorded in the name of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 which has been partitioned by Tahsildar vide order (Ex.D/8), by which the plaintiffs were given the land area 0.84 Hectare and Lalti Bai was given land area 0.67 Hectare and on the basis of such partition, Lalti Bai sold the land of her share to the defendant 4.

5. Upon perusal of the record, in my considered opinion learned Courts below have not committed any illegality in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants.

6. Resultantly, having found no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

7. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE R

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 9/6/2023 5:24:37 PM