Vanshvardhan vs Dadhibal Prasad (Dead) Through Lrs. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4596 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vanshvardhan vs Dadhibal Prasad (Dead) Through Lrs. ... on 19 February, 2025

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

                                                             1                                  SA-895-2024
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                        SA No. 895 of 2024

(VANSHVARDHAN AND OTHERS Vs DADHIBAL PRASAD (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. MAANVATI DWIVEDI AND OTHERS )

Dated : 19-02-2025 Shri Arun Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the appellants. Shri Dinesh Patel - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.

Records are received.

Heard on admission.

This appeal is filed by the appellants - plaintiffs who have lost in both the Courts.

It is submitted that suit was within time but learned trial court has wrongly held that the suit was not within time. It is further submitted that trial court has held that the plaintiffs - appellants were in possession but still did not pass a decree for permanent injunction. He also submits that the suit was filed for permanent injunction and for declaration that mutation order dated 10.6.2022 and sale deeds be executed in favour of defendant nos. 5 and 6 dated 11.6.2004 and 8.6.2005 be declared null and void. In Para 26

of judgment, the trial court held that the plaintiffs are not in settled possession of the suit property.

Learned counsel for the appellants very fairly submits that this is a typographical error, although it goes against the interest of his party as the intention of learned trial court in para-26 was to record that plaintiffs failed to establish their possession, but whatever might have been written, however, he has been successful in establishing his possession, whereas

2 SA-895-2024 learned first appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 40015 of 2019 in last three lines of para-47 of the judgment has has stated that the suit property was under the ownership of father of plaintiffs, namely Gajadharram.

Reserved for order on admission.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

bks