Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sabarsingh vs Mahesh Singh on 3 May, 2024

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 622 of 2018

BETWEEN:-
1. SABARSINGH S/O LATE SHRI HAJARILAL, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER BY
CASTE JADAM GRAM BARKHEDA, TEH. REHTI,
DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DHOOMSINGH S/O LATE SHRI HAJARILAL, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER BY
CASTE JADAM GRAM BARKHEDA TEH. REHTI
DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI P.N. DAS - ADVOCATE )

AND
1. MAHESH SINGH S/O LATE BALDAR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE GRAM
BARKHEDA, TEH. REHTI, DISTT. SEHORE, M.P.
PRESENT R/O 6 WEST NISHATPURA GAUTAM
NAGAR NEAR OLD DURGA TEMPLE BHOPAL (M
P)

2. STATE OF M.P. COLLECTOR DISTT. SEHORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT BHURRAK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 1 AND SHRI
ANUPAM CHATURVEDI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE )

This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2017 passed by 1st Addl.

District Judge, Nasrullaganj, District Sehore, in regular civil appeal no.11- A/2016 affirming judgment and decree dated 28.04.2016 passed by Addl. Civil Judge Class-I, Budhni, District Sehore, in civil suit no.9A/2012 whereby Courts below have dismissed appellants/plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction filed on the basis of adverse possession in respect of land Khasra no.175 area 0.13 acre situated in Village Barkheda, District Sehore and decreed the counter claim filed by respondent 1/defendant 1 holding him to be bhumiswami/owner of Khasra no.175 area 0.13 acre.

2. After arguments at length, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that trial Court in the execution of decree of possession has already

delivered possession of the land Khasra no.175 area 0.13 acre to the respondent 1/defendant 1 and appellants are not disputing the judgment and decree so far as it is in relation of land Khasra no.175 area 0.13 acre. He submits that a house belonging to the appellants/plaintiffs is also constructed on the land adjacent to the disputed land Khasra no.175 i.e. on Khasra no. 174 and in the garb of judgment and decree passed by Courts below the respondent 1/defendant 1 is trying to take possession of this house also.

3. In view of the aforesaid learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that impugned judgment and decree may be confirmed which are in relation to Khasra no.175 but the executing Court be directed to undertake any other further proceedings in execution only after demarcation of the land on the point as to whether the house belonging to the appellants/plaintiffs is constructed on Khasra no.175 or 174.

4. The aforesaid submission has not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent 1.

5. As such, declining interference in the judgment and decree of Courts below

this second appeal is disposed off with the observation and direction to the executing Court to execute the decree in respect of the house in question only after demarcation of the land of Khasra no.175 as well as of Khasra 174.

6. With the aforesaid, this second appeal is disposed off.

7. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed off.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE pb