Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sujan Singh vs Ram Prasad on 1 March, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 2570 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SUJAN SINGH S/O SHRI KATHAILAL LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, VILLAGE KACCHAUA TEH
PICHHORE DISTRICT SHIVPURI MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. KARAN SINGH S/O SHRI KATHAILAL LODHI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, VILLAGE KACCHAUA,
TEHSIL PICCHORE DIST. SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. FERAN SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL
PREPRESENTATIVES SHRI SURENDRA S/O LATE
SHRI FERAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
VILLAGE KACCHAUA, TEHSIL PICCHORE DIST.
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SURESH AGARWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAM PRASAD S/O SHRI PYARELAL LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, VILLAGE KACCHAUA TEH
PICHHORE DISTRICT SHIVPURI MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. PARWATI W/O SHRI BAGHRAJ LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 69 YEARS, VILLAGE SIRSONA TEHSIL
KARERA DIST. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEVLAL S/O SHRI RAM RATAN LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, VILLAGE KACCHAUA, TEHSIL
PICCHORE DIST. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. FOOLWATI W/O SHRI AMAN SINGH LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, VILLAGE KACCHAUA, TEHSIL
PICCHORE DIST. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MONIKA
SHARMA
Signing time: 02-03-2024
12:10:27 PM
2
5. KAPOORI W/O SHRI HARIRAM LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 49 YEARS, VILLAGE BHONTI, TEHSIL
PICCHORE DIST. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RUNIYA W/O SHRI AMANLAL LODHI, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, VILLAGE RAIPURA, TEHSIL
PICCHORE DIST. SHIVURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY SUNDARAM - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
NO.7/STATE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 05.08.2023 passed by Additional District Judge,
Pichhor, District Shivpuri in RCA No.08/2019 whereby the judgment and
decree dated 29.01.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge Class-I, Pichhor,
District Shivpuri in RCS A No.20-A/2014 was upheld.
Appellants who were plaintiffs before learned trial Court had filed civil
suit claiming declaration of title and permanent injunction against the
respondents/defendants on the disputed land bearing survey no.2038 area 0.31
hectare, survey no.2040 area 0.07 hectare, survey no.2041 area 0.10 hectare,
survey no.2908 area 0.16 hectare and survey no.2909 area 0.34 hectare situated
in village Kacchaua Tehsil Pichhor, District Shivpuri. It is not in dispute that
earlier title holder of the disputed land was Karanju s/o Madhu Lodhi who in his
life time on 26.06.1962 sold half of the land of survey nos.1193/1 to 1193/4 to
Ramratan and Partap both sons of Sardar Lodhi and for half of the land
Karanju continued to be owner and possession holder during his life time. As
per appellants, Rani widow of Karanju became sole owner of the disputed land
after death of Karanju. The appellants were given the disputed land vide Will
dated 23.10.1971 by Rani. After that appellants/plaintiffs became title holder of
the disputed land but father of respondent/defendant No.1 and 2 Pyarelal Lodhi
in collusion with Revenue Officers in minority of plaintiffs got entered their
names in Revenue records but possession remained with the appellants. On
26.06.2013, when respondent No.1 and 2 threatened the appellants to
dispossess them from the disputed land alleging that they are title holders of the
land, plaintiffs took copies from Revenue record on 03.07.2013 and found that
names of respondent No.1 and 2 have wrongly been entered on the disputed
land and therefore, filed the suit for declaration and possession as mentioned
herein above.
Learned counsel for the appellants taking this Court to cross-examination
para 7 of Ramprasad (PW-1) has contended that even after his admission that
Rani lived with Karanju as his wife, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs which is
bad in law. Learned First Appellate Court has also not taken this evidence in
consideration and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial
Court which also deserves reversal. Learned counsel for the appellants has
placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Karedla Parthasaradhi Vs. Gangula Ramanamma (D) Thr. Lr. And Ors.
reported in 2014 (15) SCC 789 vide judgment dated 04.12.2014 in Civil
Appeal No.3872 of 2009 to bolster his submission.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
From perusal of the record, it is apparent that learned trial Court while
appreciating the Will (Exhibit P/1) has mentioned that in this Will, no
description of disputed land has been given. Learned trial Court has also noted
overwriting on Will that in the factual situation when Rani had no issue, then
appellants cannot be her sons. Learned trial Court in paragraph 12 of the
judgment taking recourse to the provisions of Section 68 of Indian Evidence
Act regarding proof of Will has given finding that execution of Will by Rani in
favour of appellants has not been proved in accordance with law. Thus, while
giving negative finding on issue No.1 and 2, the suit of the appellant/plaintiffs
has been dismissed.
Learned First Appellate Court duly appreciated the evidence and keeping
in view the prevailing legal provisions affirmed the finding that Will is not
proved as per law. Since, Will in favour of the appellants has not been found
proved in accordance with law, therefore, they cannot be presumed to have
become the title holders of the disputed land.
When appellants have claimed title over the disputed land through Will
allegedly executed by the Rani widow of Karanju which has not been found
proved then the judgment cited above did not support the claim of the
appellants. Even if it is presumed that Rani lived with Karanju as his wife, is of
no consequence in absence of proof of execution of disputed Will in favour of
the appellant.
As learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any perversity
in concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, this Court is not obliged
to re-appreciate or re-weigh the evidence in Second Appeal. No substantial
question of law is involved. There is no justification in disturbing the concurrent
findings of fact recorded by both the courts below.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Monika
