Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra vs Laxminarayan on 6 August, 2024
1 SA-1341-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1341 of 2024
DHARMENDRA
Versus
LAXMINARAYAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Raghav Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
ORDER
The present Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment
and decree dated 12.08.2023 passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the
appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 03.05.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the said judgments
submits that the suit was filed for declaration of title by way of cancellation
of sale deed dated 01.09.2018 (Exhibit P-1) so also on the basis of adverse
possession. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that sale deed is
said to be executed on 01.09.1998 by deceased father of the appellant in
favour of the deceased father of the respondents - defendants. The deceased
father of the appellant expired in the year 2000 and the sale deed was forged,
which did not convey any title in favour of the deceased father of the
respondent - defendant.
3. It is further argued that learned counsel for the appellant that all the
defendants, who are legal representatives of the vendee of the sale deed did
2 SA-1341-2024
not file written statement and the written statement is signed and supported
by affidavit only by the defendant No.1, who is one of the legal
representatives to the deceased vendee. Thus, it has to be inferred that other
legal representatives of the vendee have admitted to claim of the present
appellant. It is further argued that the plaintiff - appellant also has sought
declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and in any event the
decree of adverse possession ought to have been granted in favour of the
appellant once the trial Court has duly held that the appellant is in possession
of the suit land.
4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the
record of the trial Court, it is evident that though the appellant - plaintiff
contended that the sale deed is forged, but no specific allegations are made
that in what manner there is fraud. A certified copy of the sale deed has been
obtained by the plaintiff from the office of Registrar of Registration and thus,
it is duly found proved by the both the Courts that the sale deed was in fact
executed before the Registrar. Both the Courts have concurrently held that
the plaintiff has not pleaded the specific reason on account of which the said
sale deed is being alleged to be forged. Thus, the said contention has been
negated by both the Courts. No error can be found in the aforesaid
justification and logic adopted by the Courts below.
5. So far as the aspect of defendant Nos.2 to 5 not filing any written
statement is concerned, it is seen that the written statement is captioned to be
filed by defendant Nos.1 to 5, but it is signed and supported by affidavit of
Signaturedefendant
Not Verified No.1. The defendant No.1 has duly contested the claim of plaintiff
Signed by: KRISHNA
SINGH
Signing time: 10-08-2024
2.01.53 PM
3 SA-1341-2024
in capacity of one of legal representatives of the vendee of sale deed. The
defendant Nos.1 to 5 are having one and the same right in the lis and the sale
deed is one and the same in favour of their father. The defendant No.1
having contested the suit and file written statement, it cannot be inferred that
the other defendants have admitted to be claim of the plaintiff.
6. So far as the ground of adverse possession is concerned, both the
Courts have recorded that the plaintiff - appellant has not pleaded that on
what date the possession of the plaintiff - appellant became adverse to the
true owner because the plaintiff appellant is undisputedly son of the vendor
of sale deed. To prove the adverse possession the plaintiff has to prove that
his possession is adverse to the true owner and also that the plaintiff must
plead and establish when he came into possession. The Courts below have
held that mere long possession cannot be said to be adverse possession.
7. Consequently, no substantial questions of law arise for
consideration against concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the
Courts. The appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj
