Prahladbai vs Mansingh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12500 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Prahladbai vs Mansingh on 3 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 3rd OF MAY, 2024

                                      SECOND APPEAL No. 2386 of 2022

                         BETWEEN:-
                         PRAHLADBAI W/O KALUSINGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
                         OCCUPATION: AGRIUCLUTRE R/O GRAM SALAKHEDI TEHSIL
                         TARANA DIST. UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                            .....APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
                         (SHRI RATNESH KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)

                         AND
                            MANSINGH S/O JHEETU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
                         1. OCCUPATION: AGRCULTURE R/O GRAMNAHARKHEDI
                            TEHSIL TARANA DIST. UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                            MADANLAL S/O JHEETU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                         2. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM NAHARKHEDI, TEH.
                            TARANA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                            BABU S/O NANURAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                         3. AGRICULTURE GRAM NAHARKHEDI, TEH. TARANA
                            (MADHYA PRADESH)
                            MAYARAM S/O NANURAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                         4. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM NAHARKHEDI, TEH.
                            TARANA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                            BIHARI S/O NANURAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
                         5. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM NAHARKHEDI, TEH.
                            TARANA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                            DEVKARAN S/O MAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, GRAM
                         6.
                            NAHARKHEDI, TEH. TARANA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                            SHRIMAN JILA COLLECTOR MAHODAY KOTHI PALACE,
                         7.
                            UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                     .....RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
                         (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
                               This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 07-05-
2024 13:16:22
                                                           2

                         the following:-

                                                     ORDER

Appellant/plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2022 passed by District Judge, Tehsil Tarana, District Ujjain (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal No.26/2020 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2020 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.16-A/2019 by Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Tarana, District Ujjain, by which the appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff.

(2) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff has filed the civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and recovery of title which has been declared as null and void of sale deed executed on 05.01.1995 and 13.02.1992, in favour of plaintiff and pleaded that survey no.432, 423, 533, total survey no.3 rakba 6.349 and new survey no.502, 505, 506, 441 and 675, total survey no.5, total rakba 6.40 hectares situated at Gram Naharkhedi, Tehsil Tarana, District Ujjain and has stated that the original owner of the suit land is her father Bhaiya S/o Onkar who has given these suit land to the defendants for 'Batai'. After the death of her father, the defendants are using the said land for agricultural work on the basis of 'Batai'. The plaintiff is the sole child of her father and

after the death of her father, she is the sole owner of the disputed land. The appellant/plaintiff is a illiterate lady and the defendant has taken her thumb impression in many blank papers by saying that they have purchased the said land from her father. Her father has done signature in the sale deed but in the sale deed thumb impression was done. So she has filed the civil suit for declaration of sale deed as null and void and recovery of possession of title of suit land.

(3) The respondents/defendants had filed the written statement before the trial court and has denied all the averments made in the plaint.

(4) The trial court has framed the issues and on the basis of pleadings and after taking the evidence has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(5) Being aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the appeal before the first appellate court and the first appellate has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. He further submits that both the courts below have committed grave error in dismissing the suit and appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff. Thus, on the basis of above grounds, substantial question of law arises for consideration in second appeal and prays that appeal be admitted for final hearing.

(6) I have heard counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and have

perused the records of the case with due care.

(7) From the perusal of records of both the courts below, it is apparent that it is a case of concurrent findings of facts i.e. both the Courts below have dismissed the suit/appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

(8) On going through the trial court record, it appears that the registered sale deed has been executed in favour of respondents/defendants by father of appellant/plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the civil suit on the basis of signature of her father on the registered sale deed and has stated that her father has not put thumb impression on the sale deed. So the burden of proof lies upon the appellant/plaintiff to show that thumb impression was not done by her father and instead he has put the signature on the sale deed.

(9) On seeing the record it appears that the plaintiff was unable to prove her case that her father has not put thumb impression on the sale deed. It can be proved by handwriting expert but the plaintiff was unable to adduce any handwriting expert before the trial court. So lack of evidence it was found that sale deed was in favour of the defendant but the same should have been rebutted by substantial evidence. Therefore on the basis of aforesaid document and evidence, the appellant has failed to prove that the thumb impression was not done by her father. Therefore the trial court and first appellate court has given the concurrent findings that appellant has failed to proof

her case.

(10) Thus, in view of 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/plaintiff 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