Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narmada Prasad Krumvanshi vs Kedar Prasad Krumvanshi on 8 January, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:601
1 SA-2989-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2989 of 2019
NARMADA PRASAD KRUMVANSHI
Versus
KEDAR PRASAD KRUMVANSHI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mohd. Adil Usmani - Advocate for the appellant.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2019 passed by Second
Additional District Judge, Nagod, District Satna, in Civil Appeal
No.100012/2013 affirming the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2013 passed
by Civil Judge Class-II, Tahsil Onchehara, District Satna in Civil Suit No.5-
A/2011 whereby Courts below have concurrently dismissed the plaintiff's
suit filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction, as well as for
setting aside the order of commissioner.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that father of
plaintiff namely Late Shri Bhagwandeen being owner and in possession of
the land, described in schedule(c), effected partition in his lifetime on
27.08.1975 by executing registered partition deed dated 27.08.1975
(Annexure P/1) in the minority of plaintiff and according to the registered
partition deed, the plaintiff is exclusive owner and in possession of the land.
He submits that the Courts below have committed illegality in holding that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:601
2 SA-2989-2019
the land in question did not belong to plaintiff's father but, it belonged to
Jagannath (grand father of the plaintiff). He further submits that trial Court
has found the plaintiff to be in possession of the land, but first appellate
Court has not dealt with the issue of possession and as the plaintiff has been
found to be in possession of the suit property, therefore, limited decree of
permanent injunction ought to have been granted in his favour. With these
submissions he prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the
record.
4. The plaintiff has claimed title on the basis of registered partition
deed dated 27.08.1975 (Annexure P/1) whereby the scheduled property was
given by father Bhagwandeen to the plaintiff in his minority. The partition
deed itself speaks that the suit property is ancestral property, in which both
the parties are having rights. As per the age shown in the plaint of the
defendants 1-6, all of them were born at the time when the partition deed was
executed. As such, it can be presumed that along with plaintiff the
defendants 1-6 being brothers and sisters of the plaintiff, were co-sharer of
the property. It is not clear from the partition deed as to why they were not
given any share in the suit property and there is no whisper about their
existence in the family, which makes the partition deed doubtful.
5. On the basis of documentary evidence available on record, Courts
below have held that in fact the suit property belonged to Jagannath (grand
father of plaintiff and defendants 1-6) and on that basis Courts below have
ignored the registered partition deed dated 27.08.1975 (Ex.P/1) and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:601
3 SA-2989-2019
recognizing the partition effected on 30.03.2007 (which was confirmed by
the Commissioner vide the order in question in the instant suit), decreed the
suit.
6. So far as the question of granting the limited decree of permanent
injunction is concerned, after ignoring the registered partition deed of the
favour of plaintiff, position of the plaintiff and defendants 1-6 becomes that
of co-owners, therefore, in my considered opinion, Courts below even after
recording finding of possession in favour of plaintiff, do not appear to have
committed any illegality in not granting decree of permanent injunction.
7. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this
second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
