Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalki Bai vs Suresh on 22 May, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 22ND, MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 269 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
LALKI BAI W/O LALCHU KEWAT, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BIJAURI, TEH. AND DIST.
ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.S.RATHORE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SURESH S/O MAYARAM KEWAT, R/O VILL.
BIJAURI, TEH. AND DIST. ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. KOSA S/O MAYARAM KEWAT, R/O VILLAGE
BIJAURI TEH. AND DISTT. ANUPPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. BUTU BAI D/O MAYARAM KEWAT R/O VILLAGE
DHANKUTA, POST PHUNGA, TEH. & DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MUNNI BAI D/O MAYARAM KEWAT, W/O DUKKU
KEWAT, R/O VILLAGE AMGAWAN TEH. JAITHARI,
DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RAGAD @ SHIVRATAN KEWAT S/O CHULLI
KEWAT, R/O VILLAGE AMLAI, POST PAYARI NO. 1
TAH. & DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. AMALU S/O CHULLI KEWAT VILLAGE AMLAI
POST PAYARI NO. 1 TAH. (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. RAMDULARE S/O CHULLI KEWAT, R/O VILLAGE
AMLAI, POST PAYARI NO.1, TAH. & DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. GOBARDHAN S/O CHULLI KEWAT R/O VILLAGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH
MAMTANI
Signing time: 22-05-2024
19:37:58
2
AMLAI, POST PAYARI NO.1, TAH. & DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. PHULWASA D/O CHULLI KEWAT, R/O VILLAGE
AMLAI, POST PAYARI NO.1, TAH. & DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. MANDODARI D/O CHULLI KEWAT, R/O VILLAGE
AMLAI, POST PAYARI NO.1, TAH. & DISTRICT
ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. STATE OF M.P THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTT.
ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2 & 4MS.DEEPANSHI LODHI - ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.11 BY SHRI TEEKARAM KURMI - PANEL LAWYER)
Reserved on : 27.2.2024
Pronounced on: 22.5.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
passed the following:
JUDGMENT
At the outset of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that
plaintiff has lost in both the courts. It is submitted for the counsel of the
appellant that appellant got the suit property by way of a gift, which has been
wrongly held as not proved by both the courts.
2. Plaintiff has filed Civil Suit No.71-A/2015 [Lalki Bai V/s Suresh
& Others] in the court of Civil Judge Class-II, Distt. Anuppur for declaration
of title and permanent injunction stating that plaintiff is owner of the suit
property situated in village Chulkari, Patwari Halka, Kolmi Distt. Anuppur, total
area 5.311 hectares in 9 different khasra number as mentioned in para-1 of the
judgment of the trial court. The suit was dismissed. The first appellate court at
Annuppur in Regular Civil Appeal No.16-A/17 by judgment and decree dated
13/12/17 dismissed the appeal.
3. Between the parties it was an admitted fact that suit property
originally belonged to Baburam Kewat who has expired about 50 years ago.
Baburam Kevat had a son Choudhary @ Dhanai Kevat and three daughters,
namely, Vidur Bai, Dokri @ Kapni Bai and Munni. While Vidur Bai expired
without any issue, plaintiff (Lalki Bai) is daughter of Choudhary @ Dhani and
Defendants No. 1 to 4 are children of Baburam's daughter-Munni Bai and
Defendants No.5 to 10 are children of Dokri @ Kapni Bai, daughter of
Baburam.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that she got the suit property by way
of a registered gift dated 17/1/1975. In this context, on perusal of the record, it
is seen that plaintiff (Lalki Bai) in her statement made in cross examination
before Court has admitted that gift deed is forged. The exact wordings of the
plaintiff (Lalki Bai) in paragraph 13 is thus- " ये कहना सही है िक मेरे ारा पेश िकया
गया दानप फ़ज़ है,"
5 . Since the appeal of the appellant is based on the argument that
courts have wrongly held that gift deed is not proved, therefore looking to the
statement of Lalki Bai it does not require any further scrutiny of the case. On
the basis of admission of appellant/plaintiff, this appeal has no substantial
question of law and both the courts have dealt with all factual and question of
law as applicable between the parties as per law.
6. In the result, this appeal has no substantial question of law on
which it can be admitted and hence, it is dismissed at admission stage itself.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
RM
