Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupendra Pratap Singh vs Surendra Singh on 4 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 SA-2043-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
SA No. 2043 of 2024
(BHUPENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs SURENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 04-02-2025
Shri L.C. Chourasiya - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri D.R. Vishwakarma - Government Advocate for respondent No.2/State.
Record has come.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a suit was preferred by the
plaintiff-appellant for declaration and permanent injunction seeking a decree of
declaration that the land belonging to Khasra No.1237 measuring 1.38 dismil
situated at Sirmour, District- Rewa, belongs to the plaintiff-appellant in pursuance
of the registered Batwaranama dated 30.06.1973 (Ex.-P/4). He submits that the
trial Court decreed the suit holding the appellant is entitled to get 1/3rd share in the
said land, as such, the suit was partly allowed. Challenging the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant
and the appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.07.2024, not
only dismissed the appeal of the appellant but also set-aside the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff-appellant. He
further submits that in absence of any cross appeal, the appellate Court has
committed an error in setting-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court. He submits that both the Courts have committed an error of law in
considering the document Ex.-D/1, which is an unregistered Batwaranama dated
26.04.1982 and holding that by the said document, earlier Batwaranama dated
30.06.1973 (Ex.-P/4) has been cancelled.
I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and
2 SA-2043-2024
perused the record.
In my opinion, the appeal involves arguable points, therefore, it is admitted
for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-
"i) Whether the appellate Court was justified in setting-aside the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which was not under
challenge and no cross appeal was filed?
ii) Whether both the Courts below erred in considering that the
unregistered Batwaranama (Ex.-D/1) was a valid one cancelling the
earlier Batwaranama dated 30.06.1973 (Ex.-P/4), which was a
registered Batwaranama?"
Since respondent No.2/State is being represented, therefore, no notice is
required to be issued.
Let notice of admission as well as I.A. No.2536/2025 be issued to
respondent No.1 only, on payment of process-fee within a period of three working
days by registered AD mode, returnable within six weeks.
By way of interim measure, it is directed that status quo in respect of
possession over the land in question i.e. Khasra No.1237, be maintained by the
parties till the next date of hearing.
List in the week commencing 24.03.2025 .
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Prachi
