Ganesh Darji vs Usha Devi
2024 Latest Caselaw 27770 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ganesh Darji vs Usha Devi on 3 October, 2024

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

                                                              1                                 SA-2036-2024
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                       SA No. 2036 of 2024
                                           (GANESH DARJI AND OTHERS Vs USHA DEVI AND OTHERS )

                                                             SA/1953/2024
                                              (USHA DEVI VS. GANESH DARJI AND OTHERS)
                           Dated : 03-10-2024
                                 Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi - Advocate for appellants in S.A.No.2036/2024
                           and for respondents in S.A.No.1953/2024.

Ms.Sneh Mishra - Advocate for appellant in S.A.No.1953/2024 and for respondent in S.A.No.2036/2024.

Shri S.S.Sengar - Panel Lawyer for the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Records of the concerned Courts are received. Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants submits that S.A.No.2036/2024 is against the reversal finding. While Ms.Sneh Mishra, learned counsel for appellant in S.A.No.1953/2024 submits that this second appeal is against the concurrent finding.

It is submitted that against the same judgment dated 09.7.2024 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.23/2024 both the parties have filed their respective separate above mentioned second appeals.

Heard S.A.No.2036/2024 on admission. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

"(i) Whether lower appellate Court committed an error by holding respondent No.1/plaintiff 1/2 share holder of the disputed land?

(ii) Whether lower appellate Court has passed

2 SA-2036-2024

the impugned judgment and decree ignoring the provision contained in sections 15 and 16 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956?"

Also heard on S.A.No.1953/2024 on admission. This second appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

"(i) Whether the learned first appellate Court rightly declared the respondent No.1 is owner of half share of the disputed property when he was not the son of Ramlotan?"

Considered prayer for interim relief. In the facts of the case it is directed that both the parties shall maintain status quo as it exists today in respect of the suit property and shall not create any third party interest over the same.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

RM