Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudarshan Vishwakarma (D) Thr Lrs ... vs Urmila on 30 May, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 30th OF MAY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 37 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1. SUDARSHAN VISHWAKARMA (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS
1A. HARIHAR VISHWAKARMA S/O LATE
SUDARSHAN VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BANKI, TEHSIL
SIHAWAL DISTT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
1B. MST MAHRAJU W/O LATE SHRI SUDARSHAN
VISHWAKRMA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
VILLAGE BANKI, TEHSIL SIHAWAL DISTT
SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
1C. KASTURI VISHWAKARMA (DEAD) THR LRS
1C(i) BHAGWAN DAS S/O LATE SHRI VISHNUDHARI
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
VILLAGE PAHADI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
1C(ii) ARUN VISHWAKARMA S/O LATE SHRI
VISHNUDHARI VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT
24 YEARS, VILLAGE PAHADI TAHSIL
SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
1D. SUSHILA VISHWAKRMA D/O LATE
SUDARSHAN VISHWAKRMA, W/O SHRI
RAMSUNDAR VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT
42 YEARS, VILLAGE UPANI TEHSIL GOPAD
BANAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
1
2. NAVI AHMED S/O MEERU BAKSH MUSALMAN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI
TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ABDUL GAFFAR S/O HASAN BAKSH, AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL
SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. AJMER BAKSH S/O MOULA BAKSH
MUSALMAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. KHALIL BAKSH S/O SAHAMAT MUSALMAN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI
TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.........APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ANIRUDH SINGH BAGHEL AND SHRI VARUN KUMAR
DUBEY - ADVOCATES)
AND
1. URMILA W/O SHRI RAMPATI
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JANKIYA W/O SHRI SHOBHNATH
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. GANGOTRI W/O SHRI SHAMBHU LOHAR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI
TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. RAMDHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS:
4A SANTOSHI JAISWAL W/O LATE
RAMDHARI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
2
VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4B. BRAJENDRA JAISWAL S/O LATE
RAMDHARI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4C. SHIVAM JAISWAL S/O LATE RAMDHARI,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI
TEHSIL SIHAWAL DISTT.SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4D. GANGA JAISWAL S/O LATE RAMDHARI,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI
TEHSIL SIHAWAL DISTT.SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RAMADHAR S/O AYODHYA, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI TEHSIL
SIHAWAL DISTT.SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6A. RAM SHIROMANI S/O AMRITLAL, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, VILLAGE BICHHI,
TEHSIL CHITRANGI DISTT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6B. SHIVDAS S/O AMRITLAL, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, VILLAGE BICCHI TEHSIL
CHITRANGI DISTT.SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6C. LOLAR S/O AMRITLAL, AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, VILLAGE BICCHI TEHSIL
CHITRANGI DISTT.SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. RAGHUNATH (DEAD) THR. LRS:
7A. JUGUNI JAISWAL W/O LATE SHRI
RAGHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
3
VILLAGE AMILIYA TAHSIL SIHAWAL,
DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7B. DHRUV JAISWAL S/O LATE SHRI
RAGHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
VILLAGE AMILIYA TAHSIL SIHAWAL,
DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7C. RAVINDRA JAISWAL S/O LATE SHRI
RAGHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
VILLAGE AMILIYA TAHSIL SIHAWAL,
DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7D. ARUN JAISWAL S/O LATE SHRI
RAGHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
VILLAGE AMILIYA TAHSIL SIHAWAL,
DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. LEKHRAJ S/O ANANDE, AGED ABOUT 55
YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL
SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. GANGA (DEAD) THR. LRS:
9A SURYAKALI TIWARI W/O LATE GANGA ,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9B BALAPRASAD TIWARI S/O LATE GANGA ,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9C RAMWALI TIWARI S/O LATE GANGA ,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9D UMESH TIWARI W/O LATE GANGA , AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BANKI
TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4
9E SILOCHANA TIWARI W/O LATE RAVENDRA
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT.
SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
9F SHIVAM TIWARI W/O LATE RAVENDRA ,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9G KRISHN TIWARI S/O LATE GANGA , AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BANKI
TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9H SUSHIL TIWARI S/O LATE GANGA , AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BANKI
TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. LOKMANI S/O SUKHAI AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE VILLAGE BANKI,
TAHSIL SIHAWAL DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11. SANKHUR MOHAMMAD S/O KISMAT
MOHD., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, VILLAGE
BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR DISTT.SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
..... RESPONDENTS
(SHRI UPENDRA K. TRIPATHI- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 1,
SHRI N.K. MISHRA- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS 2&3, MS.
ALKA SINGH BAGHEL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 10 AND
5
SHRI ANUPAM CHATURVEDI - PANEL LAWYER FOR
RESPONDENT 12/STATE )
AND
SECOND APPEAL No. 1099 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. SUDARSHAN VISHWAKARMA (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS
1A. HARIHAR VISHWAKARMA S/O LATE
SUDARSHAN VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BANKI, TEHSIL
SIHAWAL DISTT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
1B. MST MAHRAJU W/O LATE SHRI SUDARSHAN
VISHWAKRMA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
VILLAGE BANKI, TEHSIL SIHAWAL DISTT
SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
1C. KASTURI VISHWAKARMA (DEAD) THR LRS
1C(i) BHAGWAN DAS S/O LATE SHRI VISHNUDHARI
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
VILLAGE PAHADI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
1C(ii) ARUN VISHWAKARMA S/O LATE SHRI
VISHNUDHARI VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT
24 YEARS, VILLAGE PAHADI TAHSIL
SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
1D. SUSHILA VISHWAKRMA D/O LATE
SUDARSHAN VISHWAKRMA, W/O SHRI
RAMSUNDAR VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT
42 YEARS, VILLAGE UPANI TEHSIL GOPAD
BANAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NAVI AHMED S/O MEERU BAKSH MUSALMAN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI
TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6
3. ABDUL GAFFAR S/O HASAN BAKSH, AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL
SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. AJMER BAKSH S/O MOULA BAKSH
MUSALMAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. KHALIL BAKSH S/O SAHAMAT MUSALMAN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI
TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.........APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ANIRUDH SINGH BAGHEL AND SHRI VARUN KUMAR
DUBEY - ADVOCATES)
AND
1. URMILA W/O SHRI RAMPATI
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JANKIYA W/O SHRI SHOBHNATH
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. GANGOTRI W/O SHRI SHAMBHU LOHAR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI
TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. RAMDHARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS:
4A SANTOSHI JAISWAL W/O LATE
RAMDHARI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7
4B. BRAJENDRA JAISWAL S/O LATE
RAMDHARI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4C. SHIVAM JAISWAL S/O LATE RAMDHARI,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI
TEHSIL SIHAWAL DISTT.SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4D. GANGA JAISWAL S/O LATE RAMDHARI,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI
TEHSIL SIHAWAL DISTT.SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RAMADHAR S/O AYODHYA, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI TEHSIL
SIHAWAL DISTT.SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6A. RAM SHIROMANI S/O AMRITLAL, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, VILLAGE BICHHI,
TEHSIL CHITRANGI DISTT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6B. SHIVDAS S/O AMRITLAL, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, VILLAGE BICCHI TEHSIL
CHITRANGI DISTT.SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6C. LOLAR S/O AMRITLAL, AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, VILLAGE BICCHI TEHSIL
CHITRANGI DISTT.SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. RAGHUNATH (DEAD) THR. LRS:
7A. JUGUNI JAISWAL W/O LATE SHRI
RAGHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
VILLAGE AMILIYA TAHSIL SIHAWAL,
DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
8
7B. DHRUV JAISWAL S/O LATE SHRI
RAGHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
VILLAGE AMILIYA TAHSIL SIHAWAL,
DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7C. RAVINDRA JAISWAL S/O LATE SHRI
RAGHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
VILLAGE AMILIYA TAHSIL SIHAWAL,
DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7D. ARUN JAISWAL S/O LATE SHRI
RAGHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
VILLAGE AMILIYA TAHSIL SIHAWAL,
DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. LEKHRAJ S/O ANANDE, AGED ABOUT 55
YEARS, VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL
SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. GANGA (DEAD) THR. LRS:
9A SURYAKALI TIWARI W/O LATE GANGA ,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9B BALAPRASAD TIWARI S/O LATE GANGA ,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9C RAMWALI TIWARI S/O LATE GANGA ,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9D UMESH TIWARI W/O LATE GANGA , AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BANKI
TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9E SILOCHANA TIWARI W/O LATE RAVENDRA
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O
9
VILLAGE BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT.
SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
9F SHIVAM TIWARI W/O LATE RAVENDRA ,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9G KRISHN TIWARI S/O LATE GANGA , AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BANKI
TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9H SUSHIL TIWARI S/O LATE GANGA , AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BANKI
TAHSIL SIHAWAL, DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. LOKMANI S/O SUKHAI AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE VILLAGE BANKI,
TAHSIL SIHAWAL DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11. SANKHUR MOHAMMAD S/O KISMAT
MOHD., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, VILLAGE
BANKI TAHSIL SIHAWAL,SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR DISTT.SIDHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.... RESPONDENTS
(SHRI UPENDRA K. TRIPATHI- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
1-3, MS. ALKA SINGH BAGHEL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
10 AND SHRI ANUPAM CHATURVEDI - PANEL LAWYER FOR
RESPONDENT 12/STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10
These appeals coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
There being common question involved in both the second appeals
and having arisen out of common impugned judgment and decree, the
same are being decided by this common order and for the sake of
convenience, record of SA No.37/2015 is taken into consideration.
2. This second appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/defendants 1, 12 to 15 challenging judgment and decree
dtd.17.12.2014 passed by District Judge, Sidhi in RCA No.139-A/2009
affirming/modifying the judgment and decree dtd.27.08.2009 passed by
First Civil Judge Class-I, Sidhi in civil suit No.63-A/2006 whereby
respondents 1-3/plaintiffs' suit was decreed holding them to be joint
owner/bhumiswami of the disputed land and declaring the sale deeds
dtd.24.10.2005 and 19.06.2006 executed in favour of defendants 12-15
as well as the Will dtd.17.02.1990 (Ex.D/6) null and void, however, trial
court refused to issue permanent injunction. In civil appeal first
appellate court has affirmed/modified judgment and decree of trial court
directing restoration of possession, otherwise plaintiffs shall be entitled
to recover possession by filing application under Section 250 of the M.P.
Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short 'the MPLRC').
3. Facts in short are that the land in question belonged to Gayadeen
and Gajadhar. Gayadeen was survived by son Laxman and Gajadhar was
survived by son Sudarshan (defendant 1). After death, Laxman left
behind him his wife Nivajua (since dead) and three daughters namely
Vimla, Janakiya and Gangotri (plaintiffs). The plaintiffs are claiming
rights in the suit property through their father and mother Laxman and
Nivajua. The defendant Sudarshan is claiming right in the suit property
through his father Gajadhar as well as in the property of Laxman on the
basis of Will (Ex.D/6) allegedly executed by plaintiffs' mother Nivajua.
Learned courts below after holding trial held that Laxman died in the
year 1974 and the Will allegedly executed by Nivajua in favour of
defendant 1-Sudarshan is not a valid document and that Nivajua had no
right to execute the Will in respect of entire property because Laxman
was survived by four successors. Trial court held that the plaintiffs are
joint owner/bhumiswami of the property in question and they have failed
to prove their possession, therefore, did not grant decree of permanent
injunction. Against the judgment and decree passed by trial court,
plaintiffs preferred civil appeal No.19-A/2013 and present
appellants/defendants 1, 12-15 preferred civil appeal 139-A/2009. Vide
impugned judgment and decree first appellate court decided both the
appeals whereby civil appeal No.139-A/2009 filed by present appellants
was dismissed and civil appeal No.19-A/2013 filed by plaintiffs was
allowed with the direction to the defendants to hand over possession of
the land within a period of two months, otherwise they will be entitled
for possession by filing application under Section 250 of the MPLRC.
Against which second appeal No.37/2015 and SA No.1099/2017 have
been filed by the appellants/defendants 1 and 12 to 15, however, SA
No.1099/2017 is barred by limitation.
4. In my considered opinion, as a single civil suit was filed by the
plaintiffs and the defendants did not file any counter claim, therefore,
against the judgment and decree passed by courts below single second
appeal is maintainable. As such, SA No.1099/2017 which is barred by
limitation also, was not required to be filed and non-filing of appeal
within time does not affect the rights of defendants adversely.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that learned
courts below have committed illegality in holding the Will (Ex.D/6) to
be an un-proven document whereas by adducing evidence of the
attesting witnesses, execution of Will has been proved in accordance
with the provisions contained in Section 68 of the Evidence Act and
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. He further submits that because
the plaintiffs were not in possession of the land and they did not file the
suit within three years from the date of mutation of name of the
defendant 1 on the basis of Will (Ex.D/6), therefore the suit was clearly
beyond time and without considering this aspect of the matter, learned
courts below have committed illegality in decreeing the suit. He submits
that in presence of the Will, the plaintiffs have no right over the suit
property.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
7. The plaintiffs are claiming right in the property through their
father Laxman, who as per concurrent findings of courts below died in
the year 1974, therefore, undivided share in the property left by Laxman
will devolve upon his wife Nivajua and daughters Urmila, Janakiya and
Gangotri. Because the defendant 1-Sudarshan is claiming right in the
property of the share of Laxman on the basis of Will (ExD/6) allegedly
executed by his wife Nivajua, therefore, it is clear on record that
defendant 1 is accepting Laxman and Nivajua to be owner/bumiswami of
the property in question.
8. Both the courts below have upon due consideration of the material
available on record and after appreciating oral evidence regarding
execution of Will (Ex.D/6) by Nivajua, come to conclusion that
execution and attestation of unregistered Will is not proved in
accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the
Indian Succession Act. Even after making much exercise, counsel for the
appellants has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in
the concurrent findings regarding execution of Will, recorded by courts
below. Even otherwise, the findings in respect of execution and
attestation of Will being not perverse, are binding in the second appeal
and are not liable to be interfered with.
9. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellants to the
effect that the suit is barred by limitation, is concerned, the Will by
Nivajua is said to have been executed in the year 1990 in excess of her
1/4 share and the suit in question was instituted on 22.01.1996 on the
basis of knowledge of mutation orders dtd. 23.08.1990 and 28.08.1990,
that too in respect of the joint property, where no plea of adverse
possession has been taken or established by the defendants, the suit
cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
10. Further, as on the basis of Will (Ex.D/6) no rights were conferred
on defendant 1, therefore, he had no right to execute the sale deed in
favour of defendants 12-15 and courts below have rightly declared the
sale deeds and Will null and void.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that both the courts below have
concurrently held that the land/property in question is still joint property
of the parties, therefore, unless the partition is effected in accordance
with the law i.e. under Section 178 of the MPLRC, the suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction with the alternative plea of
restoration of possession is well within time.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court does not find any
illegality in the judgment and decree passed by courts below.
Resultantly for want of any substantial question of law this second
appeal (SA No.37/2015) is dismissed.
13. In view of the aforesaid, nothing remains to be decided in the SA
No.1099/2019, which is otherwise barred by limitation.
14. Accordingly, both the second appeals are dismissed.
15. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
Date: 2024.06.01 13:43:50 +05'30'
