Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohinikunwar Shaktawat W/O Late ... vs Shaktawat Pariwar Dharmik And Samajik ... on 15 May, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
FA No. 1629 of 2022
(MOHINIKUNWAR SHAKTAWAT W/O LATE HIRENDRASINGH SHAKTAWAT (RAJPUT) THROUGH SON
BAANSINGH BAAVAL WALE AND OTHERS Vs SHAKTAWAT PARIWAR DHARMIK AND SAMAJIK NYAS
THROUGH KESHAV SINGH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 15-05-2024
Shri Mangesh Bhachawat - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.
Shri Chetan Joshi - PL for respondent No.10/State.
Record of the court below has been received.
Heard on admission.
The appeal appears to be arguable, therefore, it is admitted for final
hearing.
Also heard on IA No.7120 of 2022, which is an application under Order
41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC for staying the effect and operation of
the impugned judgment and decree till the final disposal of the case.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants No.2, 3 & 4
are in possession of the suit land, which was purchased by them from appellant
No.1. Appeal has been admitted. Hence, he prays that operation and execution
of the impugned judgment and decree be stayed and the respondents No.1 to 4
be directed to maintain status quo.
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 opposes the prayer and prays
for its rejection by submitting in their reply that appellants did not have prima
facie case. Impugned judgment and decree has been passed against the
appellants. Trial court has granted mesne profit @Rs.60,000/- per annum till the
handing over possession to the answering respondents. He has placed reliance
upon the order of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh
Vs. Sagarbai reported in 2019(4) MPLJ 669, which has been upheld by
the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 30.1.2020 passed in Special
Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.258/2020.
From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it appears that admittedly
the appellant is in possession of the suit land on the basis of the registered sale
deed.
Counsel for the respondents submits that this court may pass appropriate
order for fixing the reasonable mesne profit. Although as per the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of M/s Martin and Harris Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Rajendra Mehta reported in 2002 LiveLaw (SC) 568 and Bhupendra
Kant Bhardwaj and others Vs. Rameshchandra Goyal reported in 2014
SCC OnLine MP 5342, appellate court has jurisdiction to impose such terms
which may compensate decree holder. But the trial court has already directed
the appellants/defendants to pay the mesne profit of Rs.60,000/- per annum to
the respondent/plaintiff till the handing over of possession of the suit land.
In view of the aforesaid, IA No.7120 of 2022 is allowed and it is directed
that the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated
29.7.2022 shall remain stayed till the final disposal of the appeal and both the
parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit property and the
appellants shall pay mesne profit of Rs.60,000/- per annum to the respondents
till the final disposal of this appeal.
All the parties have been served, therefore, Registry is directed to list the
matter for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
trilok
