Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayansingh vs Padamsingh (Died) Through Lrs ... on 21 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
FA No. 382 of 2019
(NARAYANSINGH AND OTHERS Vs PADAMSINGH (DIED) THROUGH LRS PARVATSINGH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 21-02-2024
Shri Sachin Subnis - Advocate along with Shri Abhinav Malhotra -
Advocate for appellants.
Shri Ranjeet Sen - Advocate for respondents No.1-B, 1-C, 1-H and 1-
G.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of
Advocate General for respondent No.4 - State of Madhya Pradesh.
Shri Navneet Kishore Verma - Advocate for respondents No.5, 6 and 7
(Caveat No.117 of 2019).
Shri Rohit Sharma - Advocate for respondent No.7.
Shri Sameer Anant Athawale - Advocate for respondent No.8.
Heard on I.A. No.1618 of 2019, an application under Order 39 Rules 1
and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as the
Code), whereby the appellants - plaintiffs are seeking temporary injunction to
the effect that the respondents be restrained to transfer or alienate the land
bearing Survey No.997/1, 978, 979 and 980, total area 2.164 hectares situated at
Village Kishoni, Tehsil Shujalpur, District Shajapur (M.P.), during pendency of
this appeal.
2. The appellants - plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent
injunction in respect of various lands of survey numbers, as mentioned in para 1
of the impugned judgment and also seeking declaration that the sale-deed dated
19.06.1996, 2006, 2007, 19.02.2010 and 14.06.2013 be declared void.
3 . According to the appellants, Onkar Singh, Narayan Singh and Padam
Singh were the three brothers. Onkar Singh had no son, therefore, he adopted
Prahlad Singh, who is a son of Padam Singh. The plaintiffs are Narayan Singh
and Prahlad Singh, jointly filed a suit against Padam Singh (now represented
through legal heirs), alleging that he had sold land to defendants No.2 and 3,
without partition. During pendency of the suit, the said land was further sold to
defendants No.5, 6 and 7; and thereafter, now sold to defendant No.8.
According to the appellants - plaintiffs, respondent No.8 is a colonizer and will
certainly sell the land by way of cutting into plots, therefore, in order to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings, he be restrained to alienate the suit property.
4 . The plaintiffs filed the suit claiming 3/8 and 3/8 share in the ancestral
property and declaration that defendant No.1 is having 1 / 4 share. Defendant
No.1 remained ex party and the suit was contested by remaining defendants,
who purchased the land from defendant No.1 time to time.
5 . On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Additional District Judge
framed nineteen issues for adjudication, and the plaintiffs have failed to prove
any of the issues. Even plaintiff No.2 has failed to prove, that he was validly
adopted by Onkar Singh and both the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the
suit land. The suit has also been found time barred and insufficiently valued in
Court Fee. Hence, now they are in First Appeal.
6. Shri Sachin Subnis and Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned counsel appearing
for plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have argued that learned Civil Court has wrongly
dismissed the suit on all issues. Defendant No.1, who was to contest the suit,
remained ex parte and did not enter into Witness Box. Therefore, on the basis
of evidence given by the defendants, who are subsequent purchasers, the
learned Court has wrongly held that there was a partition between three brothers
and defendant No.1 has rightly sold the land fell into his share.
7 . Learned counsel for respondent (s) - defendant (s) submits that the
learned Additional District Judge has rightly dismissed the suit on all issues,
after recording the findings that the partition had already taken place between
the brothers long back. The factum of partition has been admitted by the
plaintiffs and their witnesses in cross-examination. After the partition, the
plaintiffs had sold the land that came into their share and now unnecessarily
filed the suit against the defendants to harass them because value of the land has
been increased.
8 . It is further submitted by the defendants that there is collusion between
these three brothers and their legal representatives in order to harass and
blackmail the subsequent purchasers, who are bona fide purchaser by
registered sale-deed executed by Padam Singh. Padam Singh and his legal heirs
have conveniently remained ex parte, as there was a collusion with the plaintiffs
and did not contest the suit. Therefore, no injunction is liable to be granted,
especially after dismissal of the suit.
9. Learned Additional District Judge in para 74 of the judgment and decree
has held that defendant Padam Singh sold the land to Rajkumari vide registered
sale-deed dated 19.06.1996 on the basis of Bahami partition, but prior to the
said sale-deed, plaintiff No.2 Prahlad Singh had already sold a part of the suit
land vide registered sale-deed dated 06.05.1995 Ex.D/5 to Prahlat Singh,
mentioning the partition in the family in said sale-deed. Plaintiff witness's
Prahlad Singh, who also admitted that in the sale deed dated 06.05.1995, the
factum of partition is written in the sale-deed executed in favour of Prahlad
Singh. Likewise, in the sale-deed executed in favour of Gopal Singh also, the
factum of partition was also written in the sale-deed. Now, the plaintiffs came
up with the explanation that for the security of purchaser, the factum of partition
was got written in the sale deed which is nothing but ingeniousness of the
plaintiffs.
10. The plaintiff on the basis of partition ( cgeh cVokjk ) had already sold the
land, came into his share in the year 1995, Padam Singh sold the land it appears
that, the plaintiff in collusion with Padam Singh filed the suit in order to
victimize the defendants. Learned trial Court has dismissed the suit on all issues
hence now the plaintiffs are not entitled for temporary injunction.
11 . In appeal, the injunction cannot be granted mechanically in order to
block the properties purchased by bona fide purchasers long back. This appeal
of the year 2019 which is not likely to come up for hearing. Even otherwise,
any transfer of the suit land, the interest of appellants / plaintiffs would be
protected under Section 53 of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882.
12. No case for temporary injunction is made out, hence I.A. No.1618 of
2019 is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
rcp
