Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Verma vs Smt. Ramshila on 20 August, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39345
1 SA-3546-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 20 th OF AUGUST, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 3546 of 2019
SURENDRA VERMA AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. RAMSHILA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sudipta Choubey - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Abhinav Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the respondent 3/State.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
challenging the judgment and decree dated 30/9/2019 passed by District Judge,
Betul in RCA No.100031/2015 affirming/modifying the judgment and decree
dated 30/9/2015 passed by Fourth Civil Judge Class-II, Betul in Civil Suit
No.26A/2014, whereby Trial Court dismissed the appellants/plaintiffs' suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction, however, in appeal, First Appellate
Court, while affirming the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court, has
observed that the defendant 2 being purchaser of undivided share shall not
interfere in possession of the appellants over the land survey No.110/3 till
partition of the land.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the land in
question belonged to Pyarelal, who was survived by two daughters, namely,
Ramshila (defendant 1) and Chandrakali Bai and three sons, namely, Rameshwar
Prasad, Mishrilal and Sunderlal. The plaintiffs are sons of Sunderlal Verma.
Learned counsel submits that the suit property is a coparcener property and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39345
2 SA-3546-2019
defendant 1 or her sister-Chandrakali Bai are not the coparceners, therefore, the
defendant 1-Ramshila had no right to execute the sale deed dated 6/2/2006
(Ex.P/1) in favour of the defendant 2-Karansingh and without considering this
aspect of the matter, Courts below have committed an illegality in dismissing the
suit in respect of title and cancellation of sale deed dated 6/2/2006. In support of
her submissions, she placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Gurupad
Khandappa Magdum Vs. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum and others, (1978) 3 SCC
383; M. Arumugam Vs. Ammaniammal and others, (2020) 11 SCC 103; and,
Sundarambal and others Vs. Deivanayagam and others, 1991 MLJ 97 . With these
submissions, she prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the
record.
4. As has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants and from the
record, it is clear that the suit property belonged to Pyarelal, who on the date of
his death on 3/4/1982 left behind him his two daughters and three sons as
mentioned above. It is an admitted position that in his lifetime Pyarelal did not
execute any document in favour of any of his successors, transferring his
property. So, after his death on 3/4/1982, his property would devolve upon his
five successors as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short "the
Act, 1956"). While interpreting the amended provision of Section 6 of the Act,
1956 also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh
Sharma and others, (2020) 9 SCC 1 held that the daughter shall also be treated as a
coparcener in the ancestral property.
5. In the present case, it is clear that the defendant 1-Ramshila was born
even prior to coming into force of the Act, 1956, as her age in the plaint has been
shown as 80 years by the plaintiffs themselves. In view of the aforesaid, both the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39345
3 SA-3546-2019
Courts below have held that the defendant 1-Ramshila was competent to execute
the sale deed in favour of defendant 2-Karansingh. Although Trial Court has
dismissed the suit in its entirety, but First Appellate Court has, while affirming the
judgment and decree passed by Trial Court, restrained the defendant 2 from
making interference in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property until and
unless the defendant 2 gets the suit property partitioned as per law.
6. In the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta
Sharma (supra) as well as in view of the aforesaid factual scenario, the decisions
relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs do not provide any
help to the appellants.
7. 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 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
Arun*
