Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balwant Singh vs Shivnarayan on 20 May, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
SA No. 2684 of 2023
(BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs SHIVNARAYAN AND OTHERS)
Dated : 20-05-2024
Shri Neeraj Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Dinesh Patel -Government Advocate for the respondent
No.3/State.
None for the respondents No.1 & 2, inspite of service.
Record are received. Heard on the question of admission.
2. This second appeal under section 100 of CPC has been filed by
appellants/plaintiffs against the impugned judgment and decree dated
21.09.2023 passed by the District Judge, Lavkush Nagar, Chhatarpur in Civil
Appeal No.36-A/2016 [Balwant Singh and 04 others Vs. Shiv Narayan and 02
others] whereby the appeal preferred by appellants has been dismissed and the
judgment & decree dated 25.7.2016 passed by the First Civil Judge Class-I,
Laundi (Lavkush Nagar), District Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.53-A/2013 has
been affirmed.
3. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the
respondents/defendants seeking the reliefs of declaration of title, possession
and permanent in respect of the suit property bearing Khasra Nos.520/1 &
520/2, area 1.295 & 0.324 hectares respectively situated in village Baghari,
Tahsil Chandla, District Chhattarpur (MP).
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the
appellants/plaintiffs have lost in both the Courts. It is further stated the trial
Court dismissed the plaintiffs and such dismissal of suit was upheld by the
learned first appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree. It is also
contended that entries made in the name of Ganga Prasad in revenue records
were forged. The 'Patta' (Exhibit-D/1) has wrongly been denied by both the
courts. The learned first appellate Court has erroneously rejected the
applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and Order 13 Rule 10 CPC.
5. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and
perused the record of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court. From
record it is seen that defendant-Shiv Narayan (DW.1) in paragraph 12 of his
cross-examination has deposed that it is true that in Exhibit-D/1 the area of suit
land is mentioned as 15 'Bigha' whereas in Khasra No. 1944-45 the area of this
very land is mentioned as 10 'Bigha'. Also perused the reasons assigned by the
learned first appellate court while rejecting applications under Order 41 Rule 27
CPC as also under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC. This Court finds that there exist
substantial question of law for consideration. Therefore, this appeal is admitted
on the following substantial question of law:-
"Whether the learned trial Court as well as learned first appellate Court
have correctly placed reliance on 'Patta' (Exhibit-D/1) without proper
enquiry, when it was objected to by the plaintiffs?"
6. On payment of process fee by RAD mode within 10 working days
issue notice of this appeal alongwith aforesaid substantial question of law and
I.A.No.17916/2023 to the respondents No.1 & 2.
7. Considered I.A.No.17916/2023, which is an application under Order
39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. Meanwhile, it is directed that both the parties shall
maintain status quo as it exists today regarding the suit property till next date of
hearing.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
