Naththulal vs Udaybhan Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15105 MP

                                                      1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                         ON THE 13 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                           SECOND APPEAL No. 857 of 2020

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    NATHTHULAL S/O SUNWA CHOUDHARY, AGED
                                ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                R/O VILL. BANDHUR TAH. GUNOUR DISTT.
                                PANNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    MIJAJI S/O SUNWA CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 30
                                YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                                BANDHUR TAH. GUNOUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    SAGRAWALI @ PHAGUNIYA W/O SUNWA
                                CHOUDHARY,   AGED   ABOUT    47  YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION:    AGRICULTURIST    VILLAGE
                                BANDHUR TAH. GUNOUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI JANAK LAL SONI-ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    UDAYBHAN SINGH S/O SHANKAR SINGH
                                THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O VILL.
                                BANDHUR TAH. GUNOUR DISTT. PANNA M.P.
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    ASHOK KUMAR S/O SHRINIWAS VYAS, AGED
                                ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILLAGE ITWA TAH. GUNOUR,
                                DISTT. PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    DHANIYA D/O SUNWA CHAUDHARY, AGED ABOUT
                                40 YEARS, BANDHUR AT PRESENT R/O KARAHIYA
                                TAH.   GUNOUR   DISTT.   PANNA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          4.    SIYA BAI D/O SUNWA CHUDHARY, AGED ABOUT
                                44    YEARS, BANDHUR AT PRESENT R/O
                                BADHAURA TAH. GUNOUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH     COLLECTOR DIST.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SWETA SAHU
Signing time: 9/14/2023
3:20:22 PM
                                                      2
                                PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI PANKAJ RAJ-PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT)

                                T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                          following:
                                                              ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 07.02.2020 passed by District Judge, Panna in civil appeal No.57/2017 affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 31.10.2017 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Panna in RCSA No.14-A/2016 whereby appellants/plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction

and for declaring the order dtd. 28.05.2010 and 08.03.2002, as well as the sale deed dtd. 21.11.2014 executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 null and void, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the land survey no.995 area 0.40 hect. (old No.452/3 area 0.405 hectare) situated in village Bandhur, Tahsil Gunour, District Panna belonged to State Government and was allotted to the plaintiffs' father-Sunwa Choudhary in the year 1975-76 and since then the plaintiffs are in possession of the land but the defendant 1 on the basis of mutation dtd. 28.05.2010, has sold the disputed land to defendant 2 vide registered sale deed dtd. 21.11.2014 and consequently the defendant 2 has got his name mutated vide order dtd. 06.01.2015 passed on Panji No.2.

3. Learned counsel submits that in view of the allotment made by the State Government to the plaintiffs' father-Sunwa Choudhary the sale deed and mutation as well as the order dtd. 08.03.2002 are null and void. As regards the order dtd. 08.03.2002 (Ex. P/1 and Ex.D/8), learned counsel submits that this

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 9/14/2023 3:20:22 PM

order is not binding on the plaintiffs because they were not party to the order dtd. 08.03.2002. He further submits that without there being any documentary evidence, learned courts below have treated the defendants 1-2 to be owner/bhoomiswami of the land in question. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.

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

5. From perusal of the order dtd. 08.03.2002 it is clear that originally the land in question belonged to father of defendant 1 namely Shankar Singh and in the ceiling proceedings the land belonged to Shankar Singh bearing in survey no.359 (new No.845 and 847) area 2.91 acre was declared excess land and was vested in the State Government but wrongly the land survey No.452 (new No.995 etc.) was shown to be vested in the State Government and was allotted to the plaintiffs and other persons, which mistake has been corrected by SDO by passing the order dtd. 08.03.2002.

6. Learned courts below upon due consideration of the evidence available on record have found that order dtd. 08.03.2002 has been in the knowledge of the plaintiffs/appellants and even the plaintiff 1-Natthu Lal had appeared in the proceedings of the case No.2/A-1/1998-99 in which the order dtd. 08.03.2002 was passed.

7. In view of the aforesaid factual position, it cannot be said that the defendant 1 is not owner/bhoomiswami of the land and he was not having any right to sell the land to the defendant 2, further in presence of the order dtd. 08.03.2002, which attained finality due to no challenge made by the plaintiffs, nothing remains to be decided in the present case and nothing can be said in favour of the plaintiffs.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 9/14/2023 3:20:22 PM

8. Resultantly, this second appeal having no substantial question of law involved in it, fails and is hereby dismissed.

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE ss

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 9/14/2023 3:20:22 PM