Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar vs Smt Siyapyari on 18 August, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1 S.A. No.217/2019 & S.A. No.813/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 18th OF AUGUST, 2025
SECOND APPEAL NO.217 OF 2019
SURESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER
Versus
SMT. SIYAPYARI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla, Advocate for appellants.
Ms. Sanjana Sahni, Advocate for LRs of respondent 1.
Shri Sandeep Vyas, Panel Lawyer for respondent 2-State.
...........................................................................................................................
SECOND APPEAL NO.813 OF 2019
BATTULAL AND OTHERS
Versus
SURESH KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sanjana Sahni, Advocate for appellants.
Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla, Advocate for respondents.
Shri Sandeep Vyas, Panel Lawyer for respondent 3-State.
...........................................................................................................................
ORDER
As both the second appeals have arisen out of common judgment
and decree dtd. 14/12/2018 passed by First Appellate Court, therefore, are
being decided by this common order.
2. Second Appeal No.217/2019 has been preferred by the
appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 14/12/2018
passed by Additional District Judge, Lavkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur
in Regular Civil Appeal No.7A/2015 affirming/modifying the judgment
and decree dtd.14/09/2012 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Laundi,
District Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.43A/2011 whereby Trial Court
dismissed the plaintiffs' suit in its entirety and in civil appeal preferred by
the appellants/plaintiffs, First Appellate Court has decreed the suit in
respect of land survey no. 307 area 0.583 hectare situated in Gram
Kesripura, Tahsil Lavkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur.
3. Second Appeal No.813/2019 has been preferred by the LRs of
original defendant 1-Battulal Yadav challenging the judgment and decree
passed by First Appellate Court whereby plaintiffs' suit has been decreed
in respect of land survey no.307.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the suit lands
bearing survey no. 307, 351, 352 & 353 were purchased by plaintiff 2-
Santosh Rani vide registered sale deed dtd. 25/09/1987 from predecessor-
in-title namely Smt. Beni Bai and received possession and this fact is
clearly established by producing registered sale deed as well as the title
documents of the name of predecessor-in-title Smt. Beni Bai, but First
Appellate Court has committed an illegality in decreeing the suit, only in
respect of land survey no.307. He submits that on the basis of available
evidence, suit ought to have been decreed in its entirety. With these
submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants in Second Appeal No.813/2019
submits that upon due consideration of the entire material available on
record, Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit in its entirety but First
Appellate Court has committed an illegality in decreeing the suit in
respect of land survey no.307 on the basis of revenue entries, which are
not documents of title. She submits that although the defendants are not
bhoomiswami of the land but they are in possession for last more than 40-
45 years and even if the defendants have not acquired title by adverse
possession, the suit could not have been decreed in absence of proof of
title of plaintiff's predecessor-Smt. Beni Bai, from whom the plaintiff 2-
Santosh Rani purchased the land. She submits that on the basis of
panchnama (Ex.D/5) the defendant's possession for a long period, is
clearly established. With these submissions, she prays for admission of
the second appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case the defendant did not claim his title on the basis
of some documentary evidence, but claimed himself to be in possession
of the land for last more than 40-45 years and both the Courts below have
also found the defendant to be in possession of the suit lands however, it
is held that the defendant has not perfected his title by adverse
possession. Learned counsel-Ms. Sanjana Sahni has also not been able to
prove long possession of defendant over the land sufficient to acquire title
by adverse possession and she has not been able to point out any illegality
in the findings recorded by Courts below. So far as the argument
regarding long possession on the basis of panchnama is concerned, in
absence of any corroborative revenue entry, the panchnama cannot be
treated to be a proof in respect of long possession of the defendant over
the land in question.
8. So far as the decree granted by First Appellate Court in favour of
the plaintiffs regarding survey no.307 is concerned, First Appellate Court
has on the basis of revenue entry of the year 1958 (Ex.P/9), found proved
the title of predecessor of plaintiff 2-Santosh Rani and decreed the suit.
As against the said old revenue entry, the defendant has not been able to
produce any other revenue entry or evidence in rebuttal to the title of Smt.
Beni Bai over the land survey no.307. As both the parties are claiming
their title and possession on the basis of revenue entries, therefore, in my
considered opinion First Appellate Court does not appear to have
committed any illegality in placing reliance on the revenue entry (Ex.P/9)
regarding title of Smt. Beni Bai i.e. the predecessor-in-title of plaintiff 2-
Santosh Rani, which is also clear from Ex.D/13.
9. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs
has not been able to point out any documentary evidence showing title of
Smt. Beni Bai over the land survey no. 351, 352, 353, therefore, in
considered opinion of this Court First Appellate Court does appear to
have committed any illegality in decreeing the suit only in respect of
survey no. 307.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon due consideration of
the entire material available on record, this Court does not find any
illegality in the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court.
11. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, both the
second appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
Date: 2025.08.19 12:33:31 +05'30'
