Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Gulvaskar vs Smt. Mangniyabai on 2 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1821 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
ANIL GULVASKAR S/O LATE ABHICHAND @
ABIRCHAND MEHRA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NIL R/O VILLAGE BISAPURKALA, TEHSIL
MOHKHED DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI YASHOWARDHAN SHUKLA - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)
AND
1. SMT. MANGNIYABAI W/O ABHICHAND @
ABIRCHAND MEHRA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NIL R/O BAIROGANJ TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SEONI M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJKUMAR S/O ABHICHAND @ ABIRCHAND
MEHRA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O BAIROGANJ
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEONI M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. KANCHAN D/O ABHICHAND @ ABIRCHAND
MEHRA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O BAIROGANJ
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SEONI M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SAVITRI W/O RAMDAS NAGLE, AGED ABOUT 53
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: CASTE MEHRA R/O
RAJADA, TEHSIL MOHKHED, DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUSHMA W/O SHANKAR SANKAR, AGED ABOUT
40 YEARS, R/O CHIKHLIKALA, TEHSIL MOHKHED,
DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. KIRAN W/O RAJENDRA BHAVARKAR, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE MEHRA
R/O SARORA, TEHSIL MOHKHED, DISTRICT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 07-05-2024
09:59:16
2
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHHINDWARA DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAM JI PATEL - PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on admission.
2. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 Smt. Mangniyabai filed a Civil Suit before
the trial Court on the basis that the disputed land Survey No.67/1 and No.67/2
ad-measuring 2.428 hectare and 2.716 hectare respectively was ancestral
property and in the name of her husband Abhichand @ Abirchand Mehra and
plaintiff/respondent No.1 was the co-owner and co-possession holder of the
land but her husband expired in the year 2010 and respondent No.1 started
farming on the disputed land and in 2013 she was assaulted and threatened and
thrown out of home and forcefully taken the possession of the whole disputed
land. When the plaintiff demanded her share in the crop that was denied on that
basis she filed a suit against the appellant and rest of the LRs.
3. In reply to that suit, the appellant/defendant No.1 has taken defence
that Abhichand @ Abirchand Mehra was employed in WCL and after his
retirement he got Rs.26 Lakh and that rupees were distributed among the LRs
of the deceased/Abhichand @ Abirchand Mehra and no share was given to
defendant No.1 and as family settlement disputed land was given in his owner
ship and it was agreed with the parties that defendant No.1 will have ownership
and possession and by farming and cultivating what he earn will be his sole and
no other family member shall be entitled for any benefit arising out of that land.
4. Trial Court after appreciating the evidence found that the disputed
property was ancestral property and this facts are supported by the documents
Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10. In the Ex.P-9, it is clearly mentioned that the whole land of
Survey No.67 situated in Village Bisapur Kala, Tahsil and District Chhindwara
as per the revenue record was in the name of Abhichand @ Abirchand Mehra
and Laxman. The area of land was 5.144 hectare. As per Ex.P-10 the deceased
Abhichand @ Abirchand Mehra the husband of the plaintiff/respondent No.1
and father of the appellant and rest of the respondents were filed an application
for mutation and on that basis, the land was mutated in the name of Abhichand
@ Abirchand Mehra. As per Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4, this land is as per revenue
record, 67/1 and 67/2 is mutated in the name of original plaintiff/respondent
No.1 and other LRs of the deceased Abhichand @ Abirchand Mehra.
5. The trial Court as well as First Appellate Court has considered the fact
that no partition deed or relinquishment of deed was executed. The
defendant/appellant No.1 failed to prove that on family settlement this land was
given only in the share of defendant/appellant No.1.
6. Thus the respondents failed to prove any document by which it can be
shown that the whole land was given in the ownership of the appellant and it is
also clear from the document that disputed land cost more than Rs.100/- and
when any immovable property above the value of Rs.100/- or more transferred
then it is required that the deed be registered and appellant has also not pleaded
that he got the property by way of Will.
7. Thus appellant failed to demonstrate that he is the owner and
possession holder of the whole land.
8. Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court has held that the
respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled 1/7th share of the disputed property on the
basis of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
9. Hence, no perversity is found in the judgment of trial Court as well as
First Appellate Court.
10. Hence, for the above discussion, no substantial question of law is
involved in the case. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed in limine.
11. Let a copy of this order as well as records of trial Court as well as
First Appellate Court be returned back.
12. Record of this appeal is consigned to the record room.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
DPS
