Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramprasad vs Mangibai on 2 May, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 2nd OF MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 101 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
RAMPRASAD S/O RAMRATAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
PIPALBE, TEHSIL BIAORA, DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT/DEFENDANT
(MR. JYOTI SWAROOP DAVE, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)
AND
MANGIBAI W/O LATE RAMBAKSH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
1. GRAM PIPALBE, TEHSIL BIAORA DISTRICT RAJGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
JAGDISH S/O LATE RAMBASH OCCUPATION: NIL GRAM-
2. PIPLABE,TEHSIL BIAORA DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
JITENDRA S/O LATE RAMBASH OCCUPATION: NIL GRAM-
3. PIPLABE,TEHSIL BIAORA DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SONU S/O LATE RAMBASH OCCUPATION: NIL GRAM-
4. PIPLABE, TEHSIL BIAORA DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
5.
COLLECTOR, DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS
(MR. CHETAN JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed
the following:-
ORDER
Appellant/defendant has preferred this second appeal under
Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the
judgment and decree dated 24.11.2014 passed by First Additional
District Judge, Biaora, District Rajgarh (MP) in Regular Civil
Appeal No.04-A/2014 arising out of judgment and decree dated
18.02.2014 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.46-A/2011 by Civil
Judge, Class-II, Biaora, District Rajgarh (MP), by which the first
appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by
the trial court.
(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs
had filed the civil suit against the appellant/defendant for
permanent injunction and recovery of possession and has pleaded
that agricultural land bearing survey no.12/21/2, rakba 0.893
hectares situated at Gram Pipalbe, Tehsil Biaora, District Rajgarh
(MP) is in the name of plaintiff and on 01.11.2011 the defendant
has encroached the suit land of plaintiff and has stopped them for
doing the agricultural work on the said suit land. Thereafter the
plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of possession and
permanent injunction.
(3) The appellant/defendant had filed the written statement and
has pleaded that the suit land was purchased by him 20-22 years
back by way of oral agreement with sale consideration of Rs.800/-.
Thereafter the plaintiff has delivered the possession to the
defendant and denied the averments and prays for rejection of the
suit.
(4) The trial court has framed the issues and after taking the
evidence, decreed the suit of plaintiff dated 18.02.2014.
(5) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
appellant has filed the appeal before the first appellate court which
was dismissed by the first appellate court and has affirmed the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
(6) I have heard counsel for the appellant/defendant and have
perused the records of the case with due care.
(7) From the perusal of the record, it appears that the
respondents/plaintiffs have filed the civil suit against the
appellant/defendant for recovery of possession and permanent
injunction and has pleaded that he purchased the suit land by way
of oral agreement and has submitted that the plaintiff has not
denied the possession of the defendant in cross-examination so his
possession was proved.
(8) In rebuttal, counsel for the appellant has filed the judgment
of Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Badamilal Dubey
vs. Chandra Prakash and Others, reported in 1997 (2) JLJ 193 to
bolster his submissions.
(9) On perusal of the record, it was found that the plaintiff is
owner in the revenue record. The defendant has argued that he
purchased the suit land by way of oral agreement but according to
Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, that no immoveable
property which values up-to Rs.1.00 lakh can be made only by a
registered instrument. In the case of Meghmala and Others vs. G.
Narsimha Reddy and Others reported in 2010 Vol.-8 SCC 383, it
has been held that agreement to sell does not create any right in
favour of intending buyer. In the present case there is no
agreement to sell in favour of defendant. So the defense of
appellant was not proved by any substantial evidence that he
purchased the suit land and he is in possession of the suit land and
the appellant was unable to prove any substantial evidence before
the trial court that he has possessed the suit land and it is settled
law that trespassers cannot be protected. On perusal of trial court
record and evidence adduced by both the parties, both the courts
below have given concurrent findings that the plaintiff has been
able to prove his case and that the defendant has no legal right or
possession over the suit land.
(10) Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the impugned judgments passed by
trial court and first appellate court are well reasoned and based
upon the due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record. The findings recorded by trial court and first
appellate court are concurrent findings of facts. The
appellant/defendant has failed to show that how the findings of
facts recorded by trial court and first appellate court are illegal,
perverse and based on no evidence. Thus, no substantial question
of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal.
(11) Accordingly, the present second appeal sans merit and is
hereby dismissed.
(12) Certified copy, as per Rules.
(HIRDESH)
Arun/- JUDGE
