Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Swaroop & Ors. vs Musasmmat Maktuliya & Ors. on 29 January, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4409
1 SA-524-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 524 of 2005
RAM SWAROOP & ORS.
Versus
MUSASMMAT MAKTULIYA & ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Verma - Advocate for the appellants- plaintiffs.
Smt. Amrit Ruprah - Advocate for respondents- defendant nos. 1, 2 8
and 9.
None for respondent nos. 3 and 4 in spite of service of notice.
Shri Rameshwar Meshram - Advocate for respondent nos. 5 to 7.
Shri S.S. Sengar - Panel Lawyer for respondent nos. 8 - State of M.P.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure by
the appellants- plaintiffs who have lost in both the Courts.
2. The instant second appeal was admitted on 02.12.2011 on the
following substantial questions of law :-
"(i) Whether the Courts below were right in denying claim of share in
the properties situated at village Muhair even after on admission made by the
respondents/defendants that the property was Joint Hindu Family Property
and was not partitioned earlier?
(ii) Whether after holding that the property situated at village Muhair
was joint, it could be said that the sale deed executed by respondent, Ext-P-2
and P-3 were valid one?
3. Thereafter on 04.10.2024, this appeal was admitted on third
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4409
2 SA-524-2005
substantial question of law ;-
"(iii) Whether the Appellate Court is justified to reverse the findings of
Trial Court regarding the status of the property of village Muhair holding as
his self-acquired property of Defendant No.1- Mahavir without any appeal or
cross objection?"
4. Final arguments have been heard. Learned counsel for the parties
wanted to file concise synopsis within two weeks from the date of hearing
but have not filed the same, therefore, it is presumed that the parties are not
interested in filing the synopsis.
5. Findings in question No.1 :- Whether the Courts below were right in
denying the claim of share to the appellant - plaintiff - Ram Swaroop, son of
Mahavir Sahu and Kewal Prasad, son of Ramlakhan Sahu when admission
was made that the property situated in village Muhair even after admission
made by the respondent/defendant that the property was Joint Hindu Family
Property and was not partitioned earlier. On this point, on going through the
plaint and written statement, it is seen that the defendant nos. 1 to 4 in W.S.
have replied that the properties in village Majankalan have been partitioned
on 23.6.1969 after making agreement for the partition.
6. Regarding property (land) situated in village Muhair, it was pleaded
that on the Government land, defendant no. 1 was doing the agriculture work
with the help of defendant no. 2 and plaintiffs had no right over it. The suit
property in village Muhair is self- acquired property. It was also submitted
that defendant no. 1 was granted a patta for the Government Land, which is
the suit property. The defendant nos. 1 - Kailash Sahu in his Court statement
has also stated on 6.9.2002 that the property situated in village Muhair was
under cultivation of defendant no. 1 - Kailash Sahu and his father. A civil
suit was also filed in the year 1993 by the plaintiffs that the suit was
withdrawn (Examination-in-chief, Para-2), there is no admission that the
properties situated in village Muhair were Joint Hindu Family Property.
Accordingly, the Substantial Question of Law No. 1 is decided against the
appellants.
7. Regarding Substantial question of Law No.2 :- Since it not proved
that suit properties at village Muhair was Joint Hindu Family Properties,
therefore, judgment delivered on 02.12.2002 by learned Civil Judge, Class -
II, Sidhi in Civil Suit No. 126-A of 1996 (Ram Swaroop and others Vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4409
3 SA-524-2005
Mahavir Prasad through L.Rs. and others) cannot be said to be valid and the
judgment of First Appellate Court is valid as a natural consequence of
findings regarding substantial question of laws No. 1.
8. Regarding Question No.3 :- The plaintiffs brought a suit stating that
properties in village Muhair were Joint Properties but it has been held
correctly by the First Appellate Court that the suit property in village Muhair
was acquired through Government Patta by the father of the appellants, who
was living with the defendants, therefore, they are not ancestral properties
and as findings of the trial court were challenged in the First Appellate Court
wherein all issues, i.e. from Issue No. 1 to Issue No. 7 have been decided
against the plaintiffs and even without Counter Claim Issue no. 1 has been
framed where the suit properties are self-earned properties of defendant no.1.
Therefore, learned First Appellate Court was obliged to give findings as
given by it to adjudicate the First Appeal properly. Therefore, Substantial
Question No. 3 is also answered against the appellants - plaintiffs.
9. Accordingly, the findings of learned First Appellate Court are
confirmed. Resuntantly, this second appeal is dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
bks
