[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brijesh Kaurav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62570
1 SA-1674-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1674 of 2025
BRIJESH KAURAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri G.S. Baghel - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Kapil Rohra - Advocate for respondent 1.
Shri Akhilesh Upadhyay - Panel Lawyer for respondent 5/State.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants 2-
4 challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2025 passed by Fourth
District Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, in RCA No.6/2021
affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2021 passed by First Civil
Judge Class-II, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in Regular Civil Suit No.22-
A/2012, whereby both the Courts below have concurrently decreed the
respondent 1/plaintiff's suit for declaration of title, for declaring the order
dated 23.03.1994 as null and void and for partition on the basis of registered
sale deed dated 02.06.1980.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 2-4 submits that the
suit land survey nos.201/1 & 202/1 total area 2.040 hectare belonged to
Jhabbulal, who was survived by three sons namely, Ram Prasad, Bherulal
& Takhat Singh. Bherulal died bachelor/issueless. The appellants are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62570
2 SA-1674-2025
successors of Ram Prasad's son Narmada Prasad, whereas defendant 1
Munna is son of Takhat Singh's son Devkaran and defendant 5- Kanchedi is
son of Ram Prasad's son Imratlal. He submits that by virtue of registered sale
deed dated 02.06.1980 (Ex.P/3), the plaintiff Nanhi Bai is claiming right in
the suit property on the premise that she purchased disputed area 0.45 hectare
from Devkaran out of total area 2.40 hectare, however, her name was not
mutated even till the date of filing of the suit i.e. 25.06.2012. He submits that
prior to execution of sale deed by Devkaran son of Takhat Singh in favour of
the plaintiff Nanhi Bai, other two sons of Takhat Singh namely Harbagas and
Pyare had already sold more area than they own, hence Devkaran was not
competent to execute the sale deed and in fact name of Devkaran was never
recorded in the revenue record. He also submits that in the suit for partition
filed by the respondent 1/plaintiff other successors were also not made
parties, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground of
limitation as well as on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties. He
submits that remaining area is in possession of the appellants/defendants 2-4
and there is no other land remaining for partition as has been ordered by the
Courts below. He also submits that in fact the partition took place in the
family long back and again no partition can be done. With these
submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 1/plaintiff, submits
that he may be permitted to withdraw the power/Vakalatnama already filed
on behalf of the respondents 2 & 3 also and submits that both the Courts
below have upon due consideration of the entire material available on record
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62570
3 SA-1674-2025
rightly decreed the suit and there is no scope of interference in the second
appeal within the limited jurisdiction provided under Section 100 of the
CPC.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. As has been narrated above, the suit property belonged to Jhabbulal,
who was survived by three sons namely, Ram Prasad, Bherulal and Takhat
Singh. The plaintiff Smt. Nanhi Bai claims herself to be owner/Bhumiswami
of an area 0.45 hectare out of total area 2.040 hectare of survey nos.201/1 &
202/1 and claims partition in that regard. It is undipusted fact on record that
Takhat Singh was survived by three sons namely Harbgas, Pyare and
Devkaran, hence Devkaran was entitled for 1/3 share in the property left by
Takhat Singh. As such, Devkaran s/o Takhat Singh was competent to sell
the land of his share which has not been challenged by the defendant 1 -
Munna s/o Devkaran, rather the case of the plaintiff has been admitted by
defendant 1- Munna s/o Devkaran as well as by defendant 6- Madan Singh
S/o Charanlal Kaurav.
6. In my considered opinion, merely because of the fact that after sale
of the land by Devkaran, the name of plaintiff -Nanhi Bai was not mutated,
itself cannot be a ground to ignore the sale deed executed in her favour,
especially in absence of any challenge to it by Devkaran or his legal heirs or
by other legal heirs of Takhat Singh.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that although, the Trial Court has
decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, but in last paragraph i.e. para 44.1, the
Trial Court has specifically mentioned that the plaintiff is declared to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62570
4 SA-1674-2025
owner and in possession of rest of the area left in the share of Devkaran s/o
Takhat Singh and accordingly she is entitled to partition. Further, in absence
of any plea of adverse possession on behalf of the defendants, the suit filed
for declaration of title and partition as per Section 54 of the CPC, cannot be
said to be barred by limitation.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any
illegality in the judgment and decree passed by Courts below.
9. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
