Smt Kaladevi vs Kaludas Patel
2024 Latest Caselaw 4279 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt Kaladevi vs Kaludas Patel on 13 February, 2024

                                                                1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                        SA No. 3246 of 2019
                                               (SMT KALADEVI Vs KALUDAS PATEL AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 13-02-2024
                                 Shri Atul Anand Awasthy - Senior Advocate with Shri Deshhit Soubhri

                           - Advocate for appellant.
                                 Shri Sahil Sonkusale - Advocate for respondent no.1.

Ms. KCV Rao - Panel Lawyer for the State.

Heard on I.A. No.14519 of 2019 application under Order XXXIX Rule 1

and 2 of CPC to issue an ad-interim order restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the right, title, possession and enjoyment of the appellant/plaintiff over the property in suit during the pendency of this appeal.

Fact in brief are that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration prescriptive injunction for her share in disputed land situated at village Rerua, tehsil Gudh, District-Rewa and declaration of will dated 14.01.2012 is null and void and cancellation of mutation dated 19.09.2012. Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 29.04.2017 in civil suit

no.168-A/2015 by VIIIth Civil Judge, Class II, Rewa. Appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019 in regular civil appeal

no.116-A/2017 by Vth Additional District Judge, Rewa.

This second appeal has been admitted on 31.03.2023 on the substantial questions of law that whether the Courts below were right in holding that the Will was duly executed by Mangal in favour of propounder?

In this appeal, this application is filed on the ground that appellant/plaintiff has prima facie case in her favour as she cannot be deprived

of the property belonging to her late husband. Thus, balance of convenience also lies in her favour and she is hopeful of her success. Appellant/plaintiff is in possession of property. If the operation of judgment and decree is not stayed and the appellant is not protected from the illegal interference of the respondents/defendants over the property in suit. The appellant would suffer repairable rush.

Learned counsel for respondent opposed the prayer. There is nothing to stay the operation of the impugned judgment and decree as appellant herself is unsuccessful before both the Courts below.

Now the another relief is being considered regarding interference with the

right, title, possession and enjoyment of appellant/plaintiff over the property in suit during the pendency of the appeal. Conclusion on issue no.3 by Trial Court in para-23 of the judgment and affirmed by Appellate Court is that appellant/plaintiff is not in possession of disputed property. So the relief is sought vide I.A. No.14519 of 2019 cannot be granted to appellant/plaintiff. Hence, I.A. No.14519 of 2019 is rejected.

Appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.

(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE

HK