Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jeevendra Singh vs Tehsildar Tehsil Sihawal 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. 2003 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. JEEVENDRA SINGH S/O GULAB SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
VILLAGE GERUA, P.S. AMILIYA,TEHSIL SIHAWAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAMLAL S/O MAHAVIR JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT
72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE
SIHAWAL, P.S. AMILIYA, TEHSIL SIHAWAL,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. TEHSILDAR TEHSIL SIHAWAL TEHSIL TEHSIL
SIHAWAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. TEHSILDAR TEHSIL GOPADBANAS TEHSIL
GOPADBANAS, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SHESHMANI PRASAD, PATWARI HALKA SIHAWAL
PATWARI HALKA SIHAWAL, DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHESHMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS
I. MOTILAL JAISWAL S/O LATE SHESHMANI
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, VILLAGE
SIHAWAL, P.S. AMILIYA, TEHSIL SIHAWAL,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
II. RAMSANEHI JAISWAL S/O LATE SHESHMANI
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VILLAGE
SIHAWAL, P.S. AMILIYA, TEHSIL SIHAWAL,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
III. RAMNARAYAN JAISWAL S/O LATE SHESHMANI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 5/15/2024
12:27:14 PM
2
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, VILLAGE
SIHAWAL, P.S. AMILIYA, TEHSIL SIHAWAL,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
IV. AMIT JAISWAL S/O VISHNU PRASAD JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, VILLAGE SIHAWAL, P.S.
AMILIYA, TEHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
V. PUSHPENDRA JAISWAL S/O VISHNU PRASAD
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILLAGE
SIHAWAL, P.S. AMILIYA, TEHSIL SIHAWAL,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
VI. AJIT JAISWAL S/O VISHNU PRASAD JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILLAGE SIHAWAL, P.S.
AMILIYA, TEHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SHRIMAN JAISWAL S/O RAMKHELAWAN, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SAVECHA, P.S.
AMILIYA, TEHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. TIRATH PRASAD S/O RAM KHILAWAN, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SAVECHA, P.S.
AMILIYA, TEHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SUKHLAL S/O RAGHUVIR JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SAVECHA, P.S. AMILIYA,
TEHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. RAM BHILASH S/O MAHAVIR JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE SAVECHA, P.S.
AMILIYA, TEHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
C O L L E C T O R COLLECTOR SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. KAMLESH TAMRAKAR, PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT-
STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission, this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 5/15/2024
12:27:14 PM
3
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
challenging the judgment & decree dtd. 08.08.2023 passed by 4th District
Judge, Sidhi, District Sidhi in RCA no.1500256/2016 affirming judgment &
decree dtd. 10.08.2016 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Sidhi in Civil Suit
No.8A/2012 whereby courts below have dismissed appellants/plaintiffs' suit
filed simplicitor for permanent injunction in respect of a piece of land
admeasuring 1620 sq. ft. alleging it to be a part of land khasra no. 287.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the land of
survey no. 287 belonged to forefathers of plaintiff 2 and defendants 4-9. As
such, plaintiff 2-Ramlal sold a piece of land admeasuring 1620 sq.ft.vide
registered sale deed dtd.16.11.2011 (Ex. P/7) to plaintiff 1-Jeevendra Singh and
handed over possession, on the basis of which, his name was also mutated and
upon raising construction over the plot, the respondents made interference and
mutation of the plaintiff 2 was also cancelled vide order dtd. 31.07.2012. He
submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, it was for the defendant/State to
prove title over the land, who is claiming title on the premise that forefathers of
plaintiffs 2 and defendants 4-9 gave the land area 0.186 hectare to the
defendant/State. Learned counsel submits that as the plaintiffs have been found
in possession of the suit land, therefore, permanent injunction ought to have
been issued against the defendant-State. With these submissions, he prays for
admission of the second appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State 1-3 & 9 supports the
impugned judgment & decree and prays for dismissal of the second appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the record.
5. Although, originally the land of survey no.287 belonged to forefathers of the
plaintiff 2 and defendants 4-9, but courts below have taken into consideration
the revenue record in respect of the land of survey no. 287 whereby an area
0.186 hectare has been found to be recorded as road, as such, courts below
have held that plaintiffs, who are in illegal possession are not entitled for any
decree of permanent injunction. Although after filing of the written statement no
evidence has been adduced by the defendant/State but from the documents
filed by the plaintiffs themselves before the court, it is clear that there was
dispute of title in respect of the land in question, therefore, in the light of
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs.
P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and others (2008) 4 SCC 594, the plaintiffs
were bound to seek relief of declaration of the tile also, in asbence of which, the
suit simplicitor for permanent injunction is not maintainable.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the concurrent findings
of fact recorded by courts below regarding illegal possession of the plaintiffs
and their entitlement for decree of permanent injunction, this court does not find
any illegality in the judgment & decree passed by courts below dismissing the
suit filed simplicitor for permanent injunction.
7. Resultantly, for want of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed off.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
