Madhya Pradesh High Court

Suratsingh @ Sureshsingh vs Smt. Gulabbai on 9 May, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

ON THE 9th OF MAY, 2024

SECOND APPEAL No. 2251 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
SURATSINGH @ SURESHSINGH S/O LATE BADRILAL, AGED
1. ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O GRAM MADISHA PIPLIYA TEHSIL
DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
KAILASH S/O BADRILAL, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, GRAM
2. GADISHA PIPLYA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SMT. SUGANBAI W/O RAMPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
3. SOLSINDA, TEHSIL SANWER DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
SMT. KRISHNABAI W/O SOBALSINGH, AGED ABOUT 61
4. YEARS, GRAM CHOBARADHEERA, TEHSIL TONKKHURD
DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS
(SHRI BI MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI JITENDRA
BHARAT MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)

AND
SMT. GULABBAI D/O SURATSINGH @ SURESH SINGH W/O
1. KESHARSINGH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O GRAM OD
TEHSIL SONKATCH DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. SEEMABAI W/O AJABSINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
2. GRAM DEEGALI TEHSIL SONKATCH DISTRICT DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. PAPPIBAI W/O RAKESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, GRAM
3. CAMPEL, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
RACHNABAI W/O SHRI GOVIND, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
4. GRAM NANAKHEDI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN NAIR
Signing time: 25-05-
2024 10:27:16
2

SMT. GEETABAI W/O LATE UMRAOSINGH, AGED ABOUT 55
5. YEARS, GRAM GADISHA PIPLYA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
DHARMENDRA S/O LATE UMRAOSINGH, AGED ABOUT 38
6. YEARS, GRAM GADISHA PIPLYA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
KAMAL S/O LATE UMRAOSINGH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
7. GRAM GADISHA PIPLYA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
VIJAY S/O KAILASH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, GRAM
8. GADISHA PIPLYA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH COLLECTOR
9.
DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS
(SHRI RISHABH GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed
the following:-

ORDER

Appellants/defendants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2023 passed by Second District Judge, District Dewas (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal No.17/2021 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2021 in RCSA No.3600052/2015 passed by Fifth Civil Judge, Class-II, Dewas (MP).

(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs No.1 to 4 have filed the suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, partition and recovery of possession against the appellants/defendants before the trial Court in regard to agricultural land bearing survey no.175, 243/148, 359, 377 and 380 total survey no.5, total rakba 2.380 hectares of land and

survey no.398 rakba 0.600 hectares, survey no.108/2, rakba 0.19 hectares and survey no.403/1, rakba 1.27 hectares situated at Gaishapipalya, PH No.25, Tehsil and District Dewas (MP) and has stated that disputed agricultural land was ancestral property which was originally in the name of Pannalal. Pannalal has two sons namely; Badrilal and Umrao. After the death of Pannalal, the land was mutated in the name of Badrilal and Umrao. After the death of Badri on 10.08.2006, the plaintiffs and defendants are co- parceners in the suit property. The defendant No.1 has purchased the survey no.398, rakba 0.600 from his income of ancestral property and the defendants No.1 and 2 have also purchased the survey no.108/2 and 403/1 from the income and after the amendment of Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005, the daughters are also co-parceners in the ancestral property, so the plaintiffs have the right of ownership of her share in the suit for partition, declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession.

(3) The appellants/defendants filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and has stated that survey no.398, 108/2 and 403/1 are the self acquired property and is not the ancestral property. Hence prays for dismissal of the suit.

(4) The trial court has framed the issue and after taking evidence of both the parties has passed the judgment and decree on 27.08.2021 by dismissing the suit filed by the appellants/defendants.

(5) Being aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree,

the appellants/defendants filed the first appeal before the first appellate court and the first appellate court had reversed the judgment and decree of trial court and has decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs.

(6) I have heard counsel for both the parties and have perused the records of the case.

(7) On perusal of the trial court record, it was found that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, partition and recovery of possession and has pleaded that after the amendment in Hindu Succession Act, the daughters are co-parceners in the Hindu joint property so they have the right in the ancestral property after the amendment in the year 2005 on 09.09.2005.

(8) Counsel for the appellants/defendants has submitted that the defendants are the owners of the said suit property and it is the self acquired property of defendants but the submission of appellants' counsel was not correct because these properties belongs to their father Badri and Badri died on 10.08.2006 after the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005, the daughters are also co-parceners in the Hindu joint property and their right was vested by virtue of the same. After the amendment in Hindu Succession Act, the daughters are co-parceners from the date of amendment, so they are entitled to get their share and have the right for partition.

(9) Thus, in view of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the first appellate court has rightly decreed

the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The impugned judgment passed by the 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 the first appellate court are concurrent findings of facts. The appellants/defendants have failed to show that how the findings of facts recorded by the 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.

(10) Accordingly, the present second appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

(11) Certified copy, as per Rules.



                                                                                    (HIRDESH)
                         Arun/-                                                       JUDGE