Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jaykaran Singh vs Bhupendra Singh on 1 March, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1738 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. JAYKARAN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI JAMUNA
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
AGARHA TEHSIL HUZOOR DISTT REWA (M.P)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BALIKARAN SINGH S/O LATE SHRI JAMUNA
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
AJGARHA TEHSIL HUZOOR DISTT REWA (M.P)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. TRIBHUVAN SINGH S/O LATE ANUSUIYA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AJGARHA
TEHSIL HUZOOR DISTT REWA (M.P) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. RAVIKIRAN SINGH S/O LATE SITARAM SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AJGARHA
TEHSIL HUZOOR DISTT REWA (M.P) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ANIL KHARE - SR. ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PUSHPENDRA SINGH
THAKUR - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. BHUPENDRA SINGH S/O LATE DASHRATH SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AJGARHA
TEHSIL HUZOOR DISTT REWA (M.P) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. LALMAN SINGH S/O LATE DASHRATH SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AJGARHA
TEHSIL HUZOOR DISTT REWA (M.P) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. PUSHPENDRA SINGH S/O LATE DASHRATH
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 3/1/2024
7:18:53 PM
2
AJGARHA TEHSIL HUZOOR DISTT REWA (M.P)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. YASHODA SINGH W/O LATE DASHRATH SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AJGARHA
TEHSIL HUZOOR DISTT REWA (M.P) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RAJKUMARI SINGH D/O LATE SHRI DASHRATH
SINGH R/O VILLAGE AJGARHA TEHSIL HUZOOR
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SANGEETA SINGH D/O LATE SHRI DASHRATH
SINGH R/O VILLAGE AJGARHA TEHSIL HUZOOR
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. LAXMAN PRASAD S/O LATE SADHU PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
HARIHARPUR TEHSIL HUZOOR PRESENTLY
TEHSIL SIMARIYA DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. JANKI PRASAD S/O LATE SADHU PRASAD, AGED
ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE HARIHARPUR
TEHSIL HUZOOR PRESENTLY TEHSIL SIMARIYA
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. UMAKANT PRASAD S/O GANGA PRASAD, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE HARIHARPUR
TEHSIL HUZOOR PRESENTLY TEHSIL SIMARIYA
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. RAMAKANT PRASAD S/O GANGA PRASAD, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE HARIHARPUR
TEHSIL HUZOOR PRESENTLY TEHSIL SIMARIYA
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. SHIVKANT S/O GANGA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 32
YE A R S , R/O VILLAGE HARIHARPUR TEHSIL
HUZOOR PRESENTLY TEHSIL SIMARIYA
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. SHASHIKANT S/O GANGA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE HARIHARPUR TEHSIL
HUZOOR PRESENTLY TEHSIL SIMARIYA
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. SUKHRANIYA W/O LATE RAJPAL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AJGARHA TEHSIL
HUZOOR DISTT REWA (M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 3/1/2024
7:18:53 PM
3
14. AJAY SINGH S/O LATE RAJPAL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AJGARHA TEHSIL
HUZOOR DISTT REWA (M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)
15. VIJAY SINGH S/O LATE RAJPAL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AJGARHA TEHSIL
HUZOOR DISTT REWA (M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)
16. SANJAY SINGH S/O LATE RAJPAL SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AJGARHA TEHSIL
HUZOOR DISTT REWA (M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)
17. GANGI D/O VANSHGOPAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 72
YEAR S , R/O VILAGE BARTI TAHSIL RAMPUR
BAGHELAN DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
18. STATE OF M.P. COLLECTOR REWA REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GAURANSH BHURRAK -ADVOCATE )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESERVED ON :- 02-01-2024
PRONOUNCED ON :- 01-03-2024
This appeal having been heard and reserved for order, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC is preferred feeling
aggrieved by the judgment dated 03-05-2023 in RCA No. 14/15 by the First
Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Rewa arising
out of judgment and decree dated 28-02-2013 in Civil Suit No. 34-A/2012 by
First Civil Judge, Class-II Rewa.
2. Facts as per plaint are that disputed land of Survey No. 694 area 0.14
acre, Survey No. 697 area 5.05 acre and Survey No. 698 area 0.77 acre situated
at village Etaha Tahsil Huzur District- Rewa was previously in the ownership of
Mohd. Zamir known as "Laguda Bandh" and Survey No. 646, 647 and 648.
The disputed land was purchased by Vanshgopal from Mohd. Zamir vide sale
deed dated 11-09-1947. Vanshgopal Singh was ancestor of
plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and defendant Nos. 10 to 14/respondent Nos.
13 to 17.
3. Vanshgopal Singh mortgaged the disputed property in favour of
Sadhuram, who was the father of defendant Nos. 4 and 5/ respondent Nos. 7
and 8 and later Vanshgopal Singh redeemed the property but, the document of
mortgage remained in possession of Sadhuram. In the year 1980, Vanshgopal
Singh mortgaged the property in favour of Sitaram Singh. The defendant No.
3/appellant No.4 is the son of Sitaram Singh. Defendant No. 1 and 2/appellant
Nos. 1 and 2 are the brothers of Dasrath. When Dasrath Singh approached
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 then they claimed that the disputed land has been
purchased by Sitaram Singh from Sadhuram vide sale deed dated 23-05-1966.
Thereafter, Civil Suit for declaration of title, cancellation of sale deed dated 23-
05-1966 and recovery of possession was filed on 10-07-2008.
4. Defendant Nos. 1 to 9/appellants and respondent Nos. 7 to 12
contested the claim by filing a joint written statement on the ground that Mohd.
Zamir sold the property to Sadhuram and Sadhuram executed the registered
sale deed dated 23-05-1966 in favour of Sitaram Singh. The plaintiffs were
aware regarding the mutation in favour of Sitaram Singh and suit is time barred.
Defendant Nos. 10 to 14/respondent Nos. 13 to 17 supported the
plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed total 7
issues and recorded the evidence of Bhupendra Singh as (PW-1), Yadunandan
Singh as (PW-2) Kunjal Singh as (PW-3), Laxman Singh as (PW-4) and
admitted the documents Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/8. The appellant/defendant Nos. 1 to 3
examined Tribhuvan Singh as (DW-1) Janki Prasad as (DW-2), Sant Singh as
(DW-3), Kemla Prasad as (DW-4), Ravi Karan Singh as (DW-5) and produced
Ex. D/1 to Ex. D/10.
6. On appreciation of evidence the learned trial Court dismissed the suit
and the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the learned
trial Court and rejected the cross-objection on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 to
3/appellants and passed the decree in favour of plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to
6 herein declaring the owner of Survey No. 694 area 0.14 acre, Survey No. 697
area 5.05 acre and Survey No. 698 area 0.77 acre and decree of possession also
has been granted and the Sale deed dated 23-05-1966 was declared as null and
void. This Second Appeal has been preferred on the grounds (verbatim) that :-
A. The lower Appellate Court have failed to see that it has not been
proved that vide sale deed dated 11.09.1947 Ex. P/1 that the property was sold
individually to Vanshgopal Singh and even the sale deed Ex. P/1 has not been
proved in accordance with Sections 67 and 68 of Indian Evidence act.
B. The lower Appellate Court has further failed to see that if at all the
property was mortgaged with Sadhuram for Rs. 500/- in the shape of sale deed.
This fact has not been established or proved by the plaintiffs thus, the title has
been conferred on Sadhuram, who became the owner of property in suit
therefore, Sitaram being purchaser of the property from Sadhu Prasad has
become the owner of the suit property and in any manner the same is effective
on the plaintiffs. Thus, the title has been conferred on Sitaram Singh after
having purchased the property from Sadhuram by sale deed dated 23-05-1966.
C. It is obvious that as Md. Zamir sold the property to Vanshgopal on
11-09-1947 later sold it to Sadhu Prasad in the year 1980 and thereafter, the
redemption or re-conveyance has not been proved thus, Sadhu Prasad became
the absolute owner of the property and thereafter, Sadhu Prasad vide sale deed
dated 23-05-1966 sold it to Sitaram thus, Sitaram became an absolute owner of
the property.
D. The lower Appellate Court has erred in reversing the well-reasoned
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court whereas by proper appreciation
of evidence, facts and law the judgment dated 28-02-2023 was passed.
E. The lower Appellate Court is not appreciating the evidence in proper
perspective and thereby the order of reversal in the impugned judgment and
decree passed by lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside.
7. In this appeal following substantial questions of law have been
proposed :-
"(i) Whether the Sadhu Prasad became the owner of the
property having right to sell the same by virtue of
transfer of property by Vanshgopal to Sadhu Prasad in
the year 1980?
(ii) Whether the suit filed by plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1
to 6 is barred of the period of limitation?
(iii) Whether the Sitaram became an absolute owner of
property in suit having purchased from Sadhu Prasad
vide registered sale deed dated 23-05-1966?
(iv) Whether the findings given by lower Appellate
Court is perverse under the facts and circumstances of
the case?"
8. The proposed substantial questions of law No. (i) and (iii) are
contradictory because if Sadhu Prasad itself got the title in the year 1980 then,
how he transferred the property to Sitaram on 23-05-1966.
9. Moreover, Ex. P/1 is the sale deed dated 11-09-1947 executed by
Mohd. Zamir in favour of Vanshgopal Singh by which Survey No. 646 Leguda
Medh, Survey No. 647 Leguda and Survey No. 648 Medh total area 11.25 acres
was transferred. Tribhuvan Singh (DW-1) has admitted in paragraph-9 of his
statement that land of Survey No. 646 area 0.32 acre, 647 area 10.16 acre and
648 area 0.77 acre is known Legudha and that Legudha dam was in the
ownership of Mohd. Zamir.
10. The First Appellate Court has properly found proved Ex. P/1 raising
the presumption of Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There is no
evidence that Sadhu Prasad got the title on land included in Ex. P/3 dated 23-
05-1966/ Ex. D/10 from Mohd. Zamir. Janki Prasad (DW-2) is the son of the
executant of Ex.D/2 and he claims that his father Sadhuram purchased the
property from Mohd. Zamir but, no such document is on record.
11. The finding of the learned trial Court in Issue No. 6 are that the suit
of plaintiffs was within the period of limitation as he came to know the existence
of the Sale deed dated 23-05-1966 on 15-04-2008 and this finding has been
affirmed by the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court in
paragraph-9 & 10 has recorded the finding that the cause of action arose only
on 15-04-2008 and there is no evidence on record that the plaintiffs have the
knowledge of Sale deed dated 23-05-1966 prior to 15-04-2008.This concurrent
finding also does not render perverse in the light of evidence available on
record.
12. Accordingly, the finding of the First Appellate Court is based on
proper appreciation of evidence and thus, are not perverse. No substantial
question of law arises and hence, it is dismissed at admission stage itself.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
PG
