Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parag vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 20th OF June, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1044 of 2016
(PARAG AND OTHERS
Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Appearance:
(BY SHRI ABHISHEK GULATEE - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS )
(BY SHRI RAJEEV PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.1/ STATE AND NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 6, INSPITE OF
EARLIER REPRESENTATION )
ORDER
Per: AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs who
has lost in both the Courts. Arguments on admission were heard on
19.03.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that plaintiffs-
predecessor had purchased the suit land by unregistered sale-deed which
could have been looked for collateral purpose. The suit has been held as
time barred but plaintiff was in continuous possession. The State did not
give any evidence, therefore, there was no reason to ignore Ex. P/7 and P/8
documents.
3. The plaintiffs/ appellants had filed a Civil Suit NO. 567A/2008
( Parag and others Vs. State of M.P. and others). Vide judgment and decree
dated 15.01.2010, the learned trial Court at Rewa dismissed the suit of the
plantiff regarding suit land numbering 358, area 1.58 acres situated in
village Hanna Chaur on the basis of unregistered sale-deed and to declare
all documents available with defendants to be null and void against the
rights of the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction and in alternative for
reief that if he is in dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, his
possession may be restored.
4. Learned trial Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence
dismissed the civil suit.
5. Learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal by appeal No. 84-
A/2013, judgment and decree dated 23.04.2016. Against the concurrent
findings, this second appeal.
6. Considered the arguments.
7. Leaned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramrati
Sharma and another Vs. Sheela Sharma and another; 2007(3) M.P.L.J.
589 wherein in para 13 it has been held that if there is an endorsement to
the purpose that document is registered then it is due compliance of
Section 60 and 61 of the Registration Act but on Exhibit of unregistered
sale-deed which was objected during evidence on 7.3.2008 the objection
was upheld regarding non-execution of document by the trial Court in para
10 of judgment on the ground that no right could be transferred by
unregistered document. The said document was of value Rs. 640/- which
was required to be registered, therefore, the objection was correctly
decided.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bala Vs. Heeralal and
others; 1989 R.N. 258 in which it has been held that under adverse
possession, the possession becomes hostile even when given under invalid
deed of transfer, and therefore it cannot be said to be permissible.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs.
Anil Panjwani; (2003) 7 SCC 350 in which in para 33, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that even in ex-parte cases, Court can frame issues. Plaintiff
is required to prove his case.
10. On perusal of the record of the trial Court, it is seen that no revenue
officer has been examined by the plaintiffs. Documents of the plaintiffs are
not legible. They are somewhat torn and at the back, different types of
papers have been pasted. These documents especially Ex. P/3, P/4, P/5, P/6
and P/7 are in such a condition that no reliance can be placed on these
documents by this Court. Similar is the case of Ex. P/8, Ex. P/9 and Ex.
P/10, which though stated to be true copies issued by the Collector, Rewa
but no revenue authority has been called to prove these documents
therefore they can't be read for collateral purpose in favour of plaintiff.
11. The pleadings regarding adverse possession are not accurate and not
in sequence along with details. As mentioned in paragraph 3 of the
judgment of the trial Court, the suit land originally belonged to
Deenbandhu, who expired somewhere in the year 1960 then right was
transferred to Maharjua but she did not get her name mutated in the
revenue record and sold the suit land for Rs.640/- to Vishram Jogi who
sold the suit land to father of plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 Jagan Teli and father of
plaintiff 6 Ramautar Teli and father of plaintiff No.7 Mudil Teli by
unregistered document and gave possession, therefore, no ground of
adverse possession is made out by way of pleadings in the facts and
circumstance of the case when revenue record is not proved, no continuous
peaceful possession is proved for adverse possession. All the factual and
legal positions have been considered by both the Courts and nothing
remains which can be answered by this appeal.
12. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact is
well defined by catena of decisions of Supreme Court. This Court in
exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can
interfere with the finding of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse
or based on no evidence. See. Narayanan Rajendran and another Vs.
Lekshmy Sarojni and others (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain Vs.
Abdul Majeed and others (2011) 7 SCC 189, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim
Uddin and another, (2012) 8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy Vs.
Ramappa (2011) 1 SCC 158, Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishnath
Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288 and Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape (dead)
by LR Vs. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare (dead) by LRs. and Others,
(2013) 7 SCC 173.
13) For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises
for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of this judgment along with the record be sent back to the
concerned Court.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VSG
Date: 2024.06.20 18:00:12 +05'30'
