Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhupendra Kumar Jain vs Ashok Kumar Jain on 7 May, 2024

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

                                                            1
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                      SA No. 44 of 2017
                                      (BHUPENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs ASHOK KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 07-05-2024
                                 Shri Yogendra Kumar Namdeo - Advocate for the Appellant.

                                 Shri Akhil Singh - Advocate for the Respondent.

This appeal was admitted on 13.09.2023 on one substantial question of law.

Final arguments of both the parties were heard today.

It is observed by this Court that in Ex.D-1 Sale deed by Shri Bhupendra Kumar Jain in favour of Shri A.K. Jain, many words have been incorporated by hand in Hindi.

It is submitted by both the parties that those corrections have signed by Shri Bhupendra Kumar Jain but those corrections should have been signed by the Sub-Registrar who executes the Registry as a Government servant is not proved and he was not called as a witness. Ex.D-3, Registry is also not on record, which is an order of 18.06.1997 between seller Ashok Kumar Jain and buyer Maya Gupta.

Suit in the trial Court was filed on 21.09.1999 and Ex.D-6, correction of Registered documents was executed on 22.09.1999 between Ashok Kumar Jain and Maya Gupta.

It is submitted that Ex.P-1 has been claimed as a Rent note by the appellant/plaintiff but the learned counsel for the respondent submit that this is a forged document. No rent deed was executed between the parties. In fact the mezz floor was always part of the sale deed whereas the learned

counsel for the appellant submit that mezz floor was not part of sale deed. Actually, it was a different premise and was rented out to the respondent and he has entered from outside and while on inspection, it was seen that it had an entrance from inside the shop to the mezz floor.

The objection of learned counsel for the appellant is that they created a new entrance for going to the mezz floor from inside the shop and on that basis they claim that it was not a rented premise but part of original shop.

Therefore, arguments heard.

Case is reserved for delivery of judgment.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

veni