Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Vidyawati Jaiswal vs Smt.Saeeba Bee on 21 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 21 st OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 3698 of 2007
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. VIDYAWATI JAISWAL (DELETED)
2. RAKESH JAISWAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
ROHIT JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, SON OF
1. LATE SHRI RAKESH JAISWAL, RESIDENT OF JAI
PRAKASH WARD, PIPARIYA, DISTRICT
HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)
2. ANITA JAISWAL W/O LATE SHRI RAKESH
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, JAI PRAKASH
WARD PIPARIYA DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. POOJA RAI D/O LATE SHRI RAKESH
JAISWAL W/O SHRI MANOJ RAI, AGED ABOUT 40
Y E A R S , Q.NO D1411 PANIPAT REFINERY
TOWNSHIP POST PANIPAT HARYANA (HARYANA)
4. SMT. SHIVANI MUKHARYA D/O LATE SHRI
RAKESH JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 04/108
SADAR BAZAAR SAGAR TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SMT. VARSHA JAISWAL D/O LATE SHRI RAKESH
JAISWAL W/O SHRI SAPAN JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, 02 FLOOR 01 FLAT JAISWAL
HOSPITAL RAJAJI WARD RAMTEK NAGPUR
(MAHARASHTRA)
3. MUKESH JAISWAL S/O LATE SWAMI CHARAN
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, JAI PRAKASH
WARD PIPARIYA DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 5/22/2024
1:36:55 PM
2
1. SMT. SAEEDA BEE WIFE OF MEHBOOD
MUSALMAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ITWARA
BAZAR, TEHSIL PIPARIYA, DISTRICT
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR,
HOSHANGABAD, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI HITENDRA VISHWAKARMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 1)
(BY SHRI PRADEEP DWIVEDI, PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT-
STATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing, this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants
challenging the judgment & decree of remand dtd. 30.07.2007 passed by
Additional District Judge, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad in Regular Civil
Appeal No.7A/2006 reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 21.12.2005 passed
by Civil Judge Class-I, Pipariya in Civil Suit No.4A/2004, whereby trial court
decreed the appellants' suit for possession and mesne profit and in appeal filed
by defendant 1, matter has been remanded to trial court for decision of civil suit
afresh.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that due to some
minor discrepancies in the testimony of revenue inspector R.P. Meena, first
appellate court has passed the impugned judgment & decree of remand whereas
there is no such discrepancy in the testimony of revenue inspector R.P. Meena
which makes the report inadmissible, and trial court rightly decreed the suit
placing reliance on the demarcation report submitted by R.I. He submits that if
in the opinion of first appellate court the demarcation was necessary then it
should have got demarcated the land itself without remanding the matter to trial
court. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the miscellaneous appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 1 supports the impugned
judgment and decree of remand and prays for dismissal of the miscellaneous
appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. In the present case there is no dispute of ownership of the parties over the
land in question. Undisputedly the plaintiffs are owner of land survey no. 283/09
area 0.02 acres and the defendant is owner of survey no. 283/4.
6. From perusal of record it is clear that original bhumiswami of land bearing
survey no. 283, has without any sanctioned map, sold the land in small pieces
to several persons and in the present case only two persons are litigating each
other regarding their possession.
7. In the record, there is already a judgment dtd. 29.10.1999 passed in
second appeal no. 296/1990 arising out of the same civil suit whereby matter
was remanded to trial court for decision of the civil suit after getting demarcated
the land in dispute. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that till now the
direction contained in the judgment dtd. 29.10.1999 has not been complied with
by the revenue officer.
8. In view of the aforesaid and in my considered opinion, no interference is
called for in the judgment & decree of remand passed by first appellate Court,
however at the same time, it is hereby observed that trial court shall proceed
further with the suit for resolving the dispute strictly in compliance of the
directions contained in judgment dtd. 29.10.1999 passed in second appeal no.
296/1990.
9. With the aforesaid, this miscellaneous appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
10. Miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand disposed off.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
