Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mukhtyar Ahmad vs Shriram Sharma on 6 January, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
SECOND APPEAL No. 484 of 2022
MUKHTYAR AHMAD
Versus
SHRIRAM SHARMA AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Manish Manana, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Kumar Mimrot, learned counsel for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Reserved on 04.12.2024)
(Pronounced on 06.01.2025)
1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure
has been preferred by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment
and decree passed by the Courts below whereby the claim of plaintiffs
has been decreed on grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(c) and (f)
of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
2. As per the plaintiffs, they are the owners of the suit premises and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3
defendant is their tenant therein at Rs.200/- per month. The original
owner of the suit premises were Ramkumar, Krushnamurari and
Awantilal Gupta. By a registered sale deed dated 25.07.1967 they had
purchased the same from Babu Chandramohan. By virtue of an oral
partition dated 21.08.1981 memorandum regarding which was recorded
on 25.10.1981 the suit premises fell to the share of Krushnamurari
Gupta and Umesh Gupta. By a registered sale deed dated 29.01.2013
the plaintiffs have purchased the suit premises from Krushnamurari
Gupta and Umesh Gupta. After purchase they were mutated over the
suit premises and are paying taxes. They had intimated the defendant as
regards purchase of the suit premises and had requested him to pay rent
to them but he has not done so. He has on the contrary denied their title
and has claimed title in himself. The suit premises are bona fide
required by the plaintiffs for the purpose of their business and they are
not possessed of any other reasonably suitable alternate
accommodation of their own in the town. On such contentions suit was
instituted by the plaintiffs for eviction of the defendants from the suit
premises.
3. The defence of the defendant was that no document dated
25.07.1967 has been produced by plaintiffs to show ownership of
Ramkumar, Krushnamurari and Awantilal Gupta. No evidence has been
produced as regards the oral partition as pleaded by plaintiffs. The
memorandum of partition dated 25.10.1981 is a forged and fabricated
document. Krushnamurari Gupta and Umesh Gupta had no right to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3
execute sale deed with respect to the suit premises in favour of
plaintiffs. The defendant has never attorned the tenancy in favour of
plaintiffs. The original landlord of the suit premises was Awantilal
Gupta who received rent from him till 1998 but thereafter no one has
received rent from him. He has been in possession of the suit premises
ever since then in his own right hence has acquired title thereto by
virtue of adverse possession. All the other grounds as raised in the
plaint were also denied.
4. The Courts below have held that plaintiffs have acquired title to
the suit premises by virtue of registered sale deed dated 29.01.2013
executed in their favour by the previous owners Krushnamurari Gupta
and Umesh Kumar Gupta. The defendant has become their tenant by
attornement. He has however denied plaintiffs' title hence is liable to be
evicted on the ground of denial of title. The plaintiffs have proved that
the suit premises are bona fide required by them for commencing their
business and that they are not possessed of any other reasonable
suitable alternate accommodation of their own in the town.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Courts
below have erred in relying upon the memorandum of partition dated
25.10.1981 and by considering the same to be proved. The plaintiffs
contend to have purchased the suit property by registered sale deed
dated 29.01.2013 from a firm which was not partitioned between the
partners. In the sale deed Umesh Gupta is stated to be the owner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3
though he was not. He had not acquired any title by virtue of any
document executed in his favour. The documents Ex.P/1 to P/3 have
been wholly miss-appreciated by the Courts below. The defendant has
been in possession of the suit premises at least since 1998 in his own
right hence has acquired title thereto by virtue of adverse possession.
6. I have considered the submissions of the leaned counsel for the
appellant and have perused the record.
7. From the memorandum of partition dated 25.10.1981 it is
revealed that a partition had taken place between Ramkumar Gupta,
Krushnamurari Gupta, Awantilal Gupta and Umesh Gupta wherein the
ground floor of the house in which the suit premises are situated fell to
share of Umesh Kumar Gupta. Though it is contended by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the said document has not been proved by
plaintiffs hence ought not to have been relied upon but it is observed
that by order dated 13.05.2015 the trial Court had permitted the
plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence in respect of the said document.
Thereafter evidence was led by plaintiffs wherein they duly proved the
execution and contents of the said document. The order dated
13.05.2015 has never been challenged by the defendant hence has
attained finality. Once the document was duly proved in accordance
with law by proving its execution as well as the contents the Courts
below have rightly relied upon the same to hold that the ground floor of
the house in which the suit premises are situated fell to the share of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3
Umesh Gupta. The plaintiffs have purchased the suit premises from
Umesh Kumar Gupta by a registered sale deed dated 29.01.2013 in
which Krushnamurari Gupta has also signed as a consentor. Thus, by
virtue of the said sale deed plaintiffs have become owners of the suit
premises and the defendant has become their tenant by attornment.
They had also issued notice to the defendant in that regard. The minor
contradictions and variance in the statements of plaintiffs' witnesses as
have been pointed out are hardly of any significance and do not have
any bearing upon the findings ultimately recorded by the Courts below.
8. The sale deed dated 29.01.2013 Ex.P/1 is in the name of
plaintiffs in their individual capacity and not as partners of any
partnership firm namely firm Gupta Prakashan as has been contended
by the learned counsel for the appellant. There was hence no
requirement of pleading anything in regard to the said firm or any
dissolution of the same. The sale deed dated 25.07.1967 whereby
Ramkumar Gupta, Krushnamurari Gupta and Awantilal Gupta had
purchased the suit premises from Babu Chandramohan and another
though showed that the purchase was in the name of a partnership firm
but the same has no bearing upon the matter since subsequently a
partition had taken place between all the partners of the firm in which
the suit premises had fallen to the share of Awantilal Gupta. There was
hence no requirement of any dissolution of the partnership firm for suit
premises to have been so allotted. The sale deed executed in favour of
the plaintiffs is by the owner of the suit premises in which there is no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3
illegality.
9. Admittedly the defendant is a tenant in the suit premises. Even if
rent was not demanded from him for a considerable period of time his
nature of possession would not be altered in any manner. In any case
the pleading as raised by the defendant for claiming title by virtue of
adverse possession are wholly insufficient for the said purpose. He has
not pleaded as to when his possession became adverse to the real
owners. Mere possession for a particular period of time without
anything more would hardly be sufficient for conferring title by virtue
of adverse possession.
10. No other point was raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any
error having been committed by the Courts below in decreeing the
claim of plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises for
determination in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
