Maankunwar Bai vs Rajkamar Bai
2024 Latest Caselaw 3211 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Maankunwar Bai vs Rajkamar Bai on 2 February, 2024

Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney

Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney

                               1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                  ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                  SECOND APPEAL No. 398 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
1.    MAANKUNWAR BAI D/O NAHAR SINGH, AGED
      ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O GRAM RAMPUR LATERY
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    MEENA KUMARI D/O NAHAR SINGH, AGED
      ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O GRAM SALAIKHEDI TEHSIL
      AND DISTT. VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    KALABAI D/O NAHAR SINGH RAJPOOT, AGED
      ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O GRAM HINOTA JAGEER
      VERASIYA DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    SUNDERBAI D/O NAHAR SINGH RAJPOOT, AGED
      ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O GRAM BHOLAPURA
      BERASIYA DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    PRATAP SINGH S/O NAHAR SINGH RAJPOOT,
      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O GRAM BEELKHEDI
      SHAMSHABAD    DISTT.   VIDISHA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                        .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.    RAJKAMAR    BAI   D/O SHYAMSINGH GRAM
      CHAKKHEDI    POST    TARAVALI  BAIRSIYA
      DISTRICT BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH JILADHYAKSH VIDISHA
      DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO. 1 BY SHRI S.S.RAJPOOT - ADVOCAT )

      This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                                     2
following:
                                     ORDER

This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed by appellants/plaintiffs against the concurring judgment and decree dated 26/11/2021 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 57/2017; whereby, the judgment and decree dated 3/5/2017 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class 2, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 72-A/2014 has been affirmed. The suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed.

2 . Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that appellants/plaintiffs filed a civil suit pleading that plaintiffs and respondent No. 1/defendant belong to the same family. Defendant is recorded as Bhoomiswami

of the disputed land. Father of plaintiffs due to need of money entered with an agreement with defendant No. 1 to the effect that in respect of interest over the loan amount of Rs. 41,000/- , defendant No. 1 shall be at liberty to plough the field of plaintiffs and 10 years and after 10 years plaintiffs would be entitled to receive back the possession of disputed land. However, on 11/6/2002 when plaintiffs tried to take possession of the land after paying Rs. 41,000/- it is alleged that even after taking money from the plaintiffs, defendant denied to hand over the possession of disputed land, therefore, plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and declaration the sale deed dated 11/6/2002 null and void.

3 . Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and denied all the plaint allegations. It is specifically denied that an agreement as alleged was entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 instead it is alleged that it was a sale deed for sell of dispute land. There is no such conditions in that sale deed as alleged.

4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and

allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon detailed examination of evidence on record, dismissed the suit.

5. On appeal, the first appellate Court,while deciding the appeal dealt with the matter exhaustively with due advertence to oral and documentary evidence on record, the first appellate court has found that no agreement dated 11/6/2002 as alleged by plaintiffs has been executed and instead it was a sale deed in respect of dispute land. Plaintiffs failed to prove that alongshore the sale deed, an agreement dated 11/6/2002 (Ex. P/2) was also executed.

6 . After having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the view that the entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of facts which in the opinion of this Court do not warrant any interference under Section 100 of CPC. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Appeal is therefore, dismissed.

(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE JPS/-

JAI

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,

PRAKASH 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec 865c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B80

SOLANKI 72A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6 B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2024.02.07 11:25:07 +05'30'