Jaswant vs Rakesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 6335 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jaswant vs Rakesh on 1 March, 2024

                                                        1
                          IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
                                             ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2024
                                          SECOND APPEAL No. 2427 of 2018

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    JASWANT S/O MOHANLAL JI, AGED ABOUT 57
                               YE A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
                               AGHORIYA TEHSIL JIRAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    FATEHLAL S/O MOHANLAL JI JAAT, AGED ABOUT
                               52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
                               GRAM AGHORIYA, TEHSIL JEERAN, (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         3.    RADHESHYAM S/O MOHAN LAL JI JAAT, AGED
                               ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                               R/O    GRAM AGHORIYA,       TEHSIL JEERAN,
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    NEELAM D/O FATEHSINGH JI JAAT, AGED ABOUT
                               29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
                               GRAM AGHORIYA, TEHSIL - JEERAN, (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         5.    SUKHABAI W/O DARASINGH JI JAAT, AGED
                               ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                               R / O GRAM      AGHORIYA, T E H S I L JEERAN,
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....APPELLANT
                         (SHRI RAM LAL PATIDAR - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         RAKESH S/O CHATURBHUJ JAT, AGED ABOUT 28
                         YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM ASHPURA
                         TEHSIL JIRAN AND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENT
                         (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)

                               This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AKANKSHA
LAHORIYA
Signing time: 3/4/2024
10:25:02 AM
                                                              2
                         following:
                                                              ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

1. The original suit was filed by the original plaintiff before the trial Court for injunction regarding the disputed land survey No.335, 351 admeasuring respectively 3.30, 0.1130 hectare, suit in village Aghoriya. In that suit the defendants/appellants by filing the counter claim have also prayed for permanent injunction regarding disputed land survey No.342 area 12.59 hectare of the village Aghoriya District Neemuch. On that the trial Court after trial passed the decree by which the counter claim was dismissed and suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed with the direction that the defendants shall not

interfere in the disputed land in possession of the plaintiff in survey No.335 and 351 area 3.30, 0.1130 hectare without following the due process of law.

2. Being aggrieved with the above, the first appeal was filed and first appeallate Court by impugned judgment and decree dismissed the appeal of the appellants. The second appeal on the ground that the trial Court as well as appellate Court has ignored the fact that demarcation was not done properly and due to non availability of the authentic map of the village no proper demarcation can be done. The plaintiff himself has admitted that the map of the disputed agricultural land is damaged in condition so, proper demarcation cannot be done and the order of Civil Court is binding upon the Revenue Court hence, if the appeal is not allowed and decree remains in existence their interest will be adversely effected.

I have gone through the record of the trial Court as well as the of the appellate Court.

3. Perused Ex.P-5 which is the trace map of the concerned village and it

is clear that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that village map of the agricultural land is damaged cannot be accepted as Ex.P- 5 is the trace copy of the original map and there is no noting that the village map is damaged.

4. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellant failed to demonstrate that which particular part of the findings of the trial Court and appellate Court is not consonance of the record.

5. Furthermore, trace map Ex.P-5 and it is clear that the land of ownership of the appellant/defendant is survey No.342 and it is not in the boundary line of the disputed land hence, no question of disputed boundary line is found. The first Appellate Court has elaborately discussed this point.

6. The trial Court has already decreed the suit that except " due process of law" the defendant shall have not interfered in the possession of the plaintiff hence, if there is any dispute by the operation of law or by filing proper application/suit/petition before the competent authority the appellants can resolve their dispute regarding the land. Hence, no merit is found in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

7. With the copy of this order the record of the trial Court and as well as of the appellate Court be returned back.

8. No order as to costs.

(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA) JUDGE akanksha