Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Shrivastav vs Sandeep Mathuriya on 8 August, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37226
1 SA-2268-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2268 of 2024
MANISH SHRIVASTAV
Versus
SANDEEP MATHURIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Suyash Mohan Guru - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Vandana Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for respondent 4/State.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging
the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2024 passed by District Judge, Chourai,
District Chhindwara, in Civil Appeal No.9-A/2024 affirming the judgment and
decree dated 26.02.2024 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge
Senior Division, Chourai, District Chhindwara in RCSA No.75/2020 whereby
both the Courts below have concurrently dismissed the appellant/plaintiff's suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land total
area five acres (2.024 hectares), situated in Village Sagar, Tahsil Chourai, District
Chhindwara.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that although father of
the plaintiff namely Jagdish had executed registered sale deed dated 21.05.1973 in
favour of father of the respondents/defendants 1-2 Ramesh Mathuriya, but in fact
that was not a transaction of sale but the sale deed was executed for security of
loan amount of Rs.2500/- and even after sale deed, possession was not handed
over to Ramesh Mathuriya, although his name was mutated in the revenue record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37226
2 SA-2268-2024
He submits that even after execution of sale deed on 21.05.1973 by Jagdish in
favour of Ramesh Mathuriya, who died in the year 1980, Jagdish and thereafter
the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit land. He submits that when the
defendant 3 -Jagpal Dixit on the basis of sale deed executed by defendants 1-2 in
his favour on 01.10.2020, tried to take possession and to get his name mutated in
the revenue papers, the suit was filed. He submits that both the Courts below
without appreciating oral evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses as well as the
Panchnama prepared by Patwari on 11.11.2020 (Ex. P/2), have committed an
illegality in dismissing the suit. He further submits that because the plaintiff is in
possession of the suit land for last more than 45 years, has acquired title by
adverse possession. With these submissions, he prays for admission of the second
appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the record.
4. Undisputedly, the father of the plaintiff namely, Jagdish executed a sale
deed on 21.05.1973 in favour of father of defendants 1-2 namely, Ramesh
Mathuriya and pursuant thereto his name was also mutated in the revenue record
and thereafter Ramesh Mathuriya also died in the year 1980 and name of
defendants 1-2 was also mutated in the year 1983 which was never objected by the
plaintiff. It has come on record that on 01.10.2020 the defendants 1-2 also sold the
suit property to the defendant 3 and at the time of mutation of defendant 3, dispute
arose and the suit was filed on 28.11.2020 for declaration of title and permanent
injunction on the basis of Panchnama dated 11.11.2020 (Ex.P/2).
5. Both the Courts below after appreciating oral evidence as well as effect
of Panchnama (Ex.P/2) over and above the registered sale deed dated 21.05.1973
and continuous mutation entries of the name of Ramesh Mathuriya as well as of
defendants 1-2 found that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his actual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37226
3 SA-2268-2024
physical possession over the disputed land, therefore, there is no question of
adverse possession.
6. Upon due consideration of the entire material evidence available on
record, this Court does not find any illegality in the concurrent findings of facts on
the question of physical possession which are pure findings of facts and are not
liable to be interfered with in the second appeal.
7. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
