Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrabhan Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 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 14 th OF MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 982 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
CHANDRABHAN TIWARI S/O LATE RAMMANOHAR
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAEGE GOPALPUR TEHSIL
DHEEMARKHEDA DISTRICT KATNI M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI UMESH SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR KATNI DISTRICT KATNI M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHEEMARKHEDA
DISTRICT KATNI M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. T E H S I L D A R , TEHSIL DHEEMARKHEDA
DHEEMARKHEDA, DISTRICT KATNI M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DHARAMVATI W/O RAMMANOHAR
PIDHAHA(TIWARI), AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE GOPALPUR, TEHSIL DHEEMARKHEDA,
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DEEPAK TIWARI S/O RAMMANOHAR
PIDHAHA(TIWARI), AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE GOPALPUR, TEHSIL DHEEMARKHEDA,
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SARLA BAI W/O NARESH TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 30
Y E A R S , R/O VILLAGE-KUTESHWAR, POST-
DHANVAHI, P.S. BARAHI, TEHSIL-BARAHI,
DISTRICT-KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
7. SANGEETA BAI W/O ASHWANI PANDEY, AGED
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 5/15/2024
12:27:14 PM
2
ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE-BHANSAKTA,
POST AND P.S. -SIHORA, TEHSIL-SIHORA,
DISTRICT-JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. AMIT KUMAR GARG S/O RAMLAKHAN GARG,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE-
DHANWAHI, P.S -SLIMNABAD, TEHSIL-
BOHARIBAND, DISTRICT-KATNI.- (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. SANDHYA BAI W/O RAMSHARAN GAUTAM, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE-AMARPUR, P.S.-
INDWAR, DISTRICT-UMARIYA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. MONU PANDEY(MINOR) S/O ASHWANI PANDEY,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN ASHWANI
PANDEY R/O MANSAKARA, POST, P.S. AND
TEHSIL-SIHORA, DISTRICT-JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11. KAJAL BAI D/O ASHWANI PANDEY, AGED ABOUT
20 YEARS, R/O MANSAKARA, POST, P.S. AND
TEHSIL-SIHORA, DISTRICT-JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12A. ARTI BAI W/O LATE ANAND KUMAR TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O GOPALPUR, TEHSIL-
DHEEMARKHEDA, DISTRICT-KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12B. ABHISHEK TIWARI S/O LATE ANAND KUMAR
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O GOPALPUR,
TEHSIL-DHEEMARKHEDA, DISTRICT-KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
13. RAJ KUMAR YADAV S/O ACHHELAL YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE-
MAHGAWAN, TEHSIL-KUNDAM, DISTRICT-
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI O.P. PATEL, PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT-STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission, this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
challenging the judgment & decree dtd. 07.03.2022 passed by 9th District
Judge, Katni in RCA No. 106/2018 affirming judgment & decree dtd.
25.06.2018 passed by 5th Civil Judge Class-II, Katni in Civil Suit No.26A/2015
whereby courts below have dismissed appellant/plaintiff's suit for declaration of
title, permanent injunction and for declaring the order dtd. 18.07.2011 to be not
binding on the plaintiff.
2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff's father Rammanohar
had two wives namely Karu Bai and Dharamvati. From Karu Bai, plaintiff and
Batto Bai were born. The defendants 8 & 9 Amit and Sandhya are son and
daughter of Batto Bai, whereas other defendants were born from second wife
Dharamvati. Learned counsel submits that during his lifetime, Rammanohar
executed a Will dtd. 12.07.2007 (Ex.P/2) in favour of plaintiff-Chandrabhan, on
the basis of which, he is exclusive owner/bhumiswami of the property left by
Rammanohar and despite proving the said Will by the plaintiff in accordance
with Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession
Act, courts below have committed illegality in holding the Will to be not a
proven document and surrounded by suspicious circumstances. In support of
his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Meena Pradhan and Others vs. Kamla Pradhan
and another (2023) 9 SCC 734. With these submissions, learned counsel prays
for admission of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the record.
4. Undisputedly, father of the plaintiff namely Rammanohar was bhoomiswami
of the land in question, who was survived by two wives. Plaintiff-Chandrabhan
is son of Rammanohar through first wife Karu Bai. It is apparent from the
record that prior to filing of the civil suit, revenue proceedings were started
amongst the parties in respect of the land left by Rammanohar and the plaintiff
did not bring the factum of execution of Will by Rammanohar in those
proceedings remained pending before the concerning revenue authorities.
5. Although, the plaintiff has tried to prove the Will in accordance with the
provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act by examination of the attesting
witnesses, but upon appreciation of the entire material evidence available on
record, courts below have come to conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to
prove the Will and dispel the suspicious circumstances.
6. Courts below have also taken into consideration said fact that the plaintiff
has failed to explain as to why he did not bring the factum of execution of Will
in the notice of the revenue authorities and dismissed the suit.
7. Upon perusal of the entire record available, this court does not find any
illegality in the concurrent findings recorded by courts below.
8. Resultantly, for want of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed off.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
