[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Renuka @ Renu Rajput vs Smt. Premlata @ Premvati on 15 December, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32923
1 SA-1674-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1674 of 2018
SMT. RENUKA @ RENU RAJPUT
Versus
SMT. PREMLATA @ PREMVATI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Bansal - Advocate for the LRs of appellant No.1/Plaintiff
(since deceased)
Shri Bhupendra Agrawal- Advocate for defendants/respondents No.4
and 5.
ORDER
Heard on I.A.4441/2022 and I.A.No.4443/2022.
2. Aforesaid two applications are for substitution of L.Rs. of sole
appellant- Smt. Renuka alias Renu.
3. In view of the fact that appellant died on 25-04-2021 during
COVID-19 pandemic period and application for substitution is filed on 21-
09-2022, the reason of delay mentioned in the application appears to be
bonafide, hence, by condoning the delay in filing the application for setting-
aside abatement, the abatement is also set aside and learned counsel for the
appellant is directed to substitute the name of L.Rs. of the sole appellant in
the memo of appeal during the course of the day.
4. Accordingly, the said IAs are disposed of/closed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32923
2 SA-1674-2018
5. Also heard on admission.
6. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2018 passed by Sixth
Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Regular Civil Appeal No.11/2016
affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2016 passed by Third
Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Class-I, Gwalior in Civil
Suit No.60-A/2015, whereby both the Courts below have concurrently
dismissed the suit filed by appellant/ plaintiff for declaration of 1/5 share, for
declaring the sale deed dated 25.08.2004 and Will dated 17.05.2013 as null
and void and for permanent injunction.
7. Learned counsel the appellant/plaintiff submits that both the Courts
below have committed an illegality in dismissing the suit filed by plaintiff in
spite of the fact that the suit property did not belong to Prem Lata, who
executed the sale deed on 25.08.2004 in favour of Ashish and in turn he
executed the Will, that too without having any right to execute the Will on
17.05.2013 in favour of his wife Reena/defendant No.4. He further submits
that without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, both the
Courts below have committed an illegality in dismissing the suit. With these
submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondents/defendants No.4 and 5
supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below
and prays for dismissal of the second appeal.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Upon due consideration of the entire material available on record,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32923
3 SA-1674-2018
both the Courts below have found that in fact, the suit property did not
belong to the plaintiff's father- Narayan Singh, through whom, she is
claiming right in the suit property over 1/5 share. Undisputedly, the
defendants No.4 and 5 are in possession of the suit property.
11. Even after arguing at length, learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity
in the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the Courts below or any
document of title showing ownership of Narayan Singh or of the plaintiff.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any
substantial question of law involved in the second appeal.
13. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this
second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Prachi
