Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat vs Manbodhak S/O Budhua (Died) Through ... on 18 February, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7632
1 SA-678-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 678 of 2024
BHARAT AND OTHERS
Versus
MANBODHAK S/O BUDHUA (DIED) THROUGH LRS. RAJENDRA
MAHOBIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Eijaz Nazar Siddhique - Advocate for respondent No.1 on caveat.
Shri Amit Mishra - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2./State.
ORDER
This appeal was heard and reserved for orders on admission on
02/12/2024.
2. This second appeal is filed by the appellants/ defendants who have
lost in both the Courts.
3. At the time of arguments on admission it was submitted by learned
counsel for the appellants that Chhayabai wife of plaintiff- Manbodh Singh
sold the suit property to the appellants/defendants but husband i.e.
plaintiff/respondent Manbodh Singh filed a civil suit before the trial Court
which was filed by many years of purchased the suit property. Both the
Courts have failed to take this point into consideration. It is further submitted
that necessary parties have not been impleaded. The application under Order
41 Rule 27 of CPC filed by the defendant was rejected by the First Appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7632
2 SA-678-2024
Court, therefore, this appeal should be admitted.
4. Perused the record and considered the arguments.
5. Learned third Civil Judge Class-I, Seoni in Civil Suit No. 9-
A/2011 (Manbodh Singh @ Budhua vs. Smt. Chhayabai w/o of Manbodh &
others) for declaration of title and vacant the possession in respect of
agriculture land situated at village Malari, Tehsil Kavlari, District Seoni and
claimed 1/3rd share of the suit property and for cancellation of sale deed
executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No. 2 & 3, was decreed
by the trial Court. The first appeal filed by the appellants/defendants No. 2 &
3 was dismissed.
6. On perusal of the record, it is seen that in the year 1991 plaintiff
Manbodh Singh became ill/mentally disturbed, therefore, he went away from
his home. In the year 1996; his wife Smt. Chhayabai/defendant No.1 sold the
suit property to defendants No. 2 & 3. Plaintiff-Manbodh Singh came back
in the year 2009 and in the year 2011 filed the suit. Both the Court have
decreed the suit. There is no error on facts and law in the judgement of both
the courts regarding application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. It is seen
that original sale deed was sought to be brought on record whereas plaintiff
had already filed certified copy of the sale-deed as Ex.P/5, therefore; simply
taking the certified copy on record, original sale-deed would not be required.
7. If plaintiff Manbodh Singh was missing since 1991 and in this
regard missing person report was filed. After 7 years of lodging of missing
report, when whereabouts of the said person could not be known then only
competent authority can declare that there is a civil death of said person. But
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7632
3 SA-678-2024
in this case period of seven years has not elapsed and suit property was sold
in the year 1996, therefore, no substantial question of law arises in this
case. Both the Courts have considered all legal and factual aspects of the
case in proper perspective.
8. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the
findings of fact is well defined by catena of decisions of Supreme Court.
This Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure can interfere with the finding of fact only if the same is shown to
be perverse or based on no evidence. [See. Narayanan Rajendran and another
Vs. Lekshmy Sarojni and others (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain Vs.
Abdul Majeed and others (2011) 7 SCC 189, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim
Uddin and another, (2012) 8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy Vs. Ramappa
(2011) 1 SCC 158, Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012)
7 SCC 288 and Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape (dead) by LR Vs. Shankar
Rao Babu Rao Bhilare (dead) by LRs. and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 173.
9 . For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law
arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
10. Let a copy of this judgment along with the record be sent back to
the concerned Courts.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
mc
