Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kumer Singh Kanjar vs Rekha on 14 October, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29322
1 SA-1094-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1094 of 2024
KUMER SINGH KANJAR
Versus
REKHA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mohammed Imran Khan - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Devdeep Singh - Panel lawyer for the respondent No.4/State .
ORDER
Heard on admission.
1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is preferred
being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2024 passed in
regular civil appeal No.15/2020 by Second District Judge, Rajgarh District
Rajgarh arising out of judgment and decree dated 28.02.2020 in regular civil
suit No.20-A/2017 by Civil Judge, Class- I Khilchipur, District Rajgarh
where both the courts have recorded the concurrent findings in favour of
respondent No.1 & 2/plaintiffs and decreed the suit for declaration of title
and recovery of possession regarding agricultural land of survey No.1047,
1049/1 and 1572/1 area 1.607, 0.899, 1.265 hectares respectively situated at
village Chappiheda, Tehsil Khilchipur, District Rajgarh.
2. Facts in brief before the courts below were that respondent No.1
& 2/plaintiffs filed a civil suit claiming relief of declaration of title and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29322
2 SA-1094-2024
recovery of possession of disputed land asserting that suit land belongs to
Satyanarayan who was the father of respondent No.1 and husband of
respondent No.2. Asserting that Satyanarayan died in the year 2010 and
appellants/defendants No.1 & 2 took the possession of disputed land illegally
after the death of Satyanarayan taking advantage of old age of plaintiff
No.2/respondent No.2.
3. Suit was filed on 04.05.2017. Appellants/defendants contested the
case on the ground that Satyanarayan Sharma sold his land on 14.05.1991 for
a consideration of Rs.60,000/- and received a consideration of Rs.25,000/- on
14.05.1991 and again received a consideration of Rs.5,000/- on 28.07.1991
and they are in possession of the suit land since 14.05.1991. Satyanarayan
Sharma again received Rs.7,100/- on 18.11.1991 and again an amount of
Rs.37,800/- on 29.06.1994 and again received an amount of Rs.5,500/- on
28.05.2006 and again received an amount of Rs.21,000/- on 22.11.2007 and
despite the undertaking to return the amount he did not return the amount
received on different dates from Satayanarayan Sharma and thereafter
plaintiffs assured him to execute the sale-deed and he relied to their
assurance but they did not execute the sale-deed. They are in possession of
the disputed land since 26 years and plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.
The defendant/respondent No.2 also filed a separate written statement on the
lien of written statement filed by appellant/defendant No.1.
4. Trial Court framed a total 11 issues and recorded the evidence of
plaintiff No.1 Rekhabai as PW-1 and admitted the documents Ex.P-1 to P-5.
Appellants/defendant No.1 & 2 examined Kumersingh as DW-1, Mohan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29322
3 SA-1094-2024
Singh DW-2, Subhash DW-3, Majja as DW-4 and Kesar Singh DW-5 and
Bappulal as DW-6 and adduced the documents Ex.D-1 to D-5.
5. Appreciating the evidence Trial Court decreed the suit of the
plaintiffs recording the finding that Satyanarayan was the Bhoomiswami of
the disputed land and the possession of defendant No.1 & 2 did not ripen
into ownership on the basis of adverse possession. First Appellate Court
also affirmed the findings of Trial Court. This second appeal is preferred
proposing the following substantial questions of law:-
a. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the findings
of learned Trial Court and learned First Appellate Court in respect
of the agreement justified ?
b. Whether the learned First Appellate Court has grossly erred
failing to not considering the settled possession of the
Appellant/Defendant on the "disputed land" since 28 years ?
c. Whether the learned First Appellate Court was Justified by
pronouncing the Judgment and Decree without examine the oral
and documentary evidence available on record ?
d. Whether the learned First Appellate Court has grossly erred by
failing to consider that the learned Trial Court has passed the
judgment without giving any proper opportunity to the
Appellant/Defendant to give its evidence against the new
pleadings averred by the new Respondent plaintiff and passing an
adverse Judgment which is contrary to the rules of CPC as well as
violation of principles of natural justice?
e. Whether the learned First Appellate Court justified in holding
that the Suit property was not coparcenary property ?
f. Whether the learned Trial Court as well as learned First
Appellate Court erred in believing that the Appellant and
Respondent No.3 can be tried jointly in one civil suit despite there
were different lands in dispute ?
g. Whether the learned First Appellate Court and learned Trial
Court erred in believing that the Respondent No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs
in suit had a cause of action against the Appellant ?
h. Whether the learned First Appellate Court was justified in
holding that the Appellant/Defendant does not have any legal right
in suit land ?
i. Whether the learned First Appellate Court was justified in
pronouncing the judgment and decree when the suit of the
plaintiffs was time barred ?
j. Whether the learned First Appellate Court considering the new
party and new pleadings added after the closer of the evidence of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29322
4 SA-1094-2024
both the parties justified ?
k. Whether the learned First Appellate Court Justified by
pronouncing the Judgment and Decree when no proper court fees
paid by the Respondent/Plaintiff ?
Perused the record.
6. Perusal of Ex. D-2 dated 14.05.1991 and entry on the back of
Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3 to D-5 discloses that the transaction between Satyanarayan
and appellants was of money taken as loan only. There was no sale. The
findings of Trial Court that adverse possession has not been ripen into
ownership of defendant No.1 & 2 does not require to be interfered. No
document has been misinterpreted. Findings are based on proper
appreciation of the evidence. Accordingly, no substantial questions of law is
made out in this second appeal and is hereby dismissed at admission stage.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
akanksha
