Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Neena Gupta vs Ravindra Kumar Chaube on 6 August, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16685
1 CR-799-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 799 of 2023
SMT. NEENA GUPTA
Versus
RAVINDRA KUMAR CHAUBE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Bansal, Advocate for applicant.
None for respondent No.1.
Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwah, Government Advocate for respondent
No.5/State.
ORDER
This civil revision, under section 115 of CPC, has been filed against
the order dated 26/09/2023 passed by I Additional Judge to the Court of I
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Guna in RCSA No.82/2023 (filing No. RCSA
319/2023), by which an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC has been
rejected.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that Ravindra Kumar
Choubey has filed a civil suit for declaration that sale deeds dated
11/01/2022 and 11/03/2022 executed in favour of Ramswaroop Gupta and
Smt. Neena Gupta, be declared as null and void. It is submitted by counsel
for applicant that applicant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC
on the ground that the suit is barred by law and it does not disclose any cause
of action. However, the trial Court by order dated 26/09/2023 has rejected
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16685
2 CR-799-2023
the application on the ground that issue can be framed to the effect as to
whether the plaint discloses any cause of action or not.
It is submitted that earlier Kailash Narayan and Jagdish Prasad had
filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against Neeraj
alias Pappu, which was registered as Civil Suit No.10A/2011. In the said
civil suit, Neeraj alias Pappu had filed his counter-claim It is submitted that
during the pendency of civil suit, Jagdish Prasad expired and his legal
representatives were brought on record. The present plaintiff namely
Ravindra Kumar Chaube was also substituted in place of Jagdish Prasad
being one of his legal representatives. By judgment and decree dated
30/11/2011, the civil suit filed by Kailash Narayan and legal representatives
of Jagdish Prasad was partially allowed and it was held that 24 x 24 square
feet of land, as mentioned in the plaint map, is in the ownership and
possession of plaintiffs, whereas plaintiffs are in possession of remaining
part of land. Permanent injunction was also issued against Neeraj and
counter-claim filed by Neeraj was dismissed. Against this judgment and
decree, Neeraj has filed first appeal, which is pending before this Court.
It is submitted by counsel for applicant that during the pendency of
previous litigation, Neeraj had alienated the property to Ramswaroop Gupta
and Smt. Neena Gupta and it is submitted that as per section 47 of CPC, if
there is any dispute, then it can be adjudicated by the Executing Court.
However, it is fairly conceded that no execution proceedings are pending in
the present case.
3. So far as the question as to whether the suit filed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16685
3 CR-799-2023
plaintiff/respondent No.1 discloses cause of action or not is concerned, one
thing is clear that counter-claim filed by Neeraj, who has alienated the
property to applicants, was dismissed. Therefore, for the time being there is
no declaration that Neeraj is the owner of property in dispute including the
property which was alienated by him. So far as the rights of plaintiffs
namely Kailash Narayan and legal representatives of Jagdish Prasad are
concerned, by judgment and decree dated 30/11/2011, it was held that
plaintiffs are owners and in possession of 24 x 24 square feet of land, as
mentioned in the plaint map, and they are in possession of the remaining part
of land. Indian law respects possession and no one can be dispossessed
without following due procedure of law. The counter-claim filed by Neeraj
was already dismissed against which first appeal is pending. Thus, it is clear
that matter is sub judice before the High Court and the plaintiffs namely
Kailash Narayan and legal representatives of Jagidsh Prasad cannot be
dispossessed for the time being without following due process of law.
Furthermore, as title of Neeraj was not declared, therefore, for the time being
applicant would not get any title or right in the property by virtue of sale
deed executed by Neeraj in her favour. It is well established principle of law
that a vendor cannot transfer title better than he himself is having. Since the
counter-claim filed by Neeraj was already dismissed, which is subject matter
of first appeal, therefore, for the time being, it cannot be said that Smt. Neena
Gupta/applicant is having title in the property in dispute.
4. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
not only the civil suit filed by respondent No.1 discloses cause of action, but
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16685
4 CR-799-2023
it is also not barred by law.
5. For the reasons mentioned above, no case is made out warranting
interference.
6. Revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
(and)
