Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mithlesh Tiwari vs Prabhudayal Prajapati on 13 February, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 2285 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
MITHLESH TIWARI S/O SADHU TIWARI, AGED ABOUT
48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O
TIKURIYA TOLA NEAR DILAURA TALAB SATNA TEHSIL
RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI RAM LALA SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. PRABHUDAYAL PRAJAPATI S/O BABULAL
PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, TIKURIYA
TOLA BESIDE HARIJAN COLONY SATNA TEHSIL
RAGHURAJNAGAR, DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
COLLECTOR DISTT-SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAMAUTAR DAHIYA S/O RAMGOPAL DAHIYA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, TIKURIYA TOLA NEAR
DILAURA TALAB SATNA TEH.
RAGHURANJNAGAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAMBIHARI GAUTAM - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 1 AND SHRI
SATISH PATERIYA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT 2/STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree dtd.15.07.2019 passed by 3rd Additional
District Judge, Satna in RCA No.3400155/2016 affirming the judgment and
decree dtd.19.11.2016 passed by 4th Civil Judge Class-II, Satna in civil suit
No.25-A/2015 whereby Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs 1-2's
(Mithilesh Tiwari and Ramautar Dahiya) suit for declaration of title and
permanent injunction and decreed the counter claim of defendant 1 filed for
declaration of title and restoration of possession.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff 1 submits that courts below
have committed illegality in holding the respondent 1/defendant 1-Prabhudayal
Prajapati to be bhoomiswami and in possession of land Khasra No.380 area
0.59 acre situated in Mouja Dilaura, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna
whereas the land of Khasra No.380 belongs to the State Government. Learned
counsel submits that although an order under Section 250 of the MPLRC was
also passed against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendant 1, but the defendant
1 having no ownership over the land in question is not entitled for decree of
declaration of title and restoration of possession and the counter claim filed by
the defendant 1 is clearly barred by limitation because the plaintiffs are in
possession of the land since the year 1993 after having raised construction of
houses over the land in question. With these submissions he prays for
admission of the second appeal.
3 . Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 1 supports the
impugned judgment and decree passed by courts below and prays for dismissal
of second appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Perusal of record shows that although plaintiffs claim themselves to be
in possession of the suit property but they have not been able to show any right
in respect of the land in question. Although one application under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC was filed by the plaintiff/appellant before first appellate court but
that also does not improve the case of plaintiff. Taking into consideration the
document of ownership i.e. sale deed dtd.10.07.1967 (Ex.D/9) of the favour of
defendant 1, courts below have concurrently held him to be
owner/bhoomiswami and in possession of the land Khasra No.380 and that the
plaintiffs have encroached upon some part of the respondent 1/defendant 1's
land by raising construction of houses.
6. Upon perusal of entire record this Court does not find any illegality in
the judgment and decree passed by courts below, therefore, there being no
substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, the same deserves to
be and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
