Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalji vs Jagannath Singh on 8 August, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37337
1 SA-840-2016
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. 840 of 2016
LALJI
Versus
JAGANNATH SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pawan Kumar Saxena, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Akhil Singh, Advocate for respondents 1, 2, 4 & 5.
Shri Sandeep Vyas, Panel Lawyer for respondent-State.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 24.02.2016 passed by 1st
Additional District Judge, Singrauli Head Qr. Waidhan in Civil Appeal
No.43A/2012 affirming the judgment and decree dtd.28.01.2012 passed by
Civil Judge Class-I, Singrauli, Head Qr. Waidhan in Civil Suit
No.145A/2011, whereby both the Courts below have dismissed the
appellant/plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction
claiming 1/2 share in the suit property on the premise of execution of
unregistered Will dated 10.10.1984 by Chaturgun Sahu.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit property
belonged to father of plaintiff, namely Chaturgun Sahu, who had two wives
namely Parvatiya and Phuljhariya. The plaintiff was born out of wedlock of
Chaturgun Sahu and Parvatiya, whereas the defendants 1 & 3 to 6 were born
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37337
2 SA-840-2016
out of wedlock of second wife Phuljhariya and Chaturgun Sahu. He submits
that as Chaturgun Sahu got married to Phuljhariya even in the lifetime of
first wife Parvatiya herself, therefore, Courts below have committed illegality
in holding Smt. Phuljhariya to be legally wedded wife of Chaturgun Sahu
and committed illegality in holding the plaintiff to be entitled for 1/7 share
only. He further submits that the defendants 1 & 3 to 6 being illegitimate
children of Smt. Phuljhariya and Chaturgun Sahu, have no right in the suit
property. He further submits that Chaturgun Sahu had executed a Will on
10.10.1984 in favour of the plaintiff-Lalji, therefore, the plaintiff was
entitled for declaration to the extent of half share in the property left by
Chaturgun Sahu and Courts below have committed an illegality in dismissing
the suit.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 2, 4 & 5
supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below and
prays for dismissal of the second appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Both the Courts below have upon due consideration of the oral
and documentary evidence found that Phuljhariya-defendant 2 is legally
wedded wife of Chaturgun Sahu because prior to her marriage, first wife-
Parvatiya had died and also held that defendant 1 and 3 to 6 were born out of
wedlock of Chaturgun Sahu and Phuljhariya. As a result thereof, it was held
that the plaintiff and defendants 1-6 all are entitled for equal 1/7 share in the
property left by Chaturgun Sahu.
6. So far as the question of execution of Will dated 10.10.1984 by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37337
3 SA-840-2016
Chaturgun Sahu in favour of plaintiff is concerned, both the Courts below
have found that the plaintiff, despite availability of opportunity, did not
examine attesting witnesses namely Hiralal Shah, Vishale and Rustom Singh
Gond. Although affidavit of chief examination of Hiralal was filed on
record, but he was not kept present for cross examination, as such Courts
below have found that the Will allegedly executed in favour of plaintiff is not
a proven document.
7. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the appellant has not
been able to point out any illegality in the concurrent judgment and decree
passed by Courts below.
8. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this
second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
