Smt Runi Bai vs Krishna
2025 Latest Caselaw 1094 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt Runi Bai vs Krishna on 3 July, 2025

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29117




                                                              1                             SA-115-2025
                            IN      THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                    ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2025
                                                SECOND APPEAL No. 115 of 2025
                                                         SMT RUNI BAI
                                                            Versus
                                                     KRISHNA AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                           Shri Pushpendra Dubey - Advocate for the appellant.

                                                               ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant 4-Runi Bai challenging the judgment and decree dated 12/12/2024 passed by District Judge, Aamla, District Betul in RCA No.24/2023 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29/9/2023 passed by First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aamla, District Betul in Civil Suit No.19-A/2019, whereby both the Courts below have partly decreed the respondents/plaintiffs' suit filed for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaring the sale deed dated 1/1/2019 as null and void.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant 4 submits that the land

survey No.214 area 0.805 hectare belonged to Gopi, who was survived by two sons, namely, Shyamlal and Bhangu (defendant 1), whose wife is defendant 2- Kala. Plaintiffs are successors of Shyamlal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was oral agreement of sale in between defendant 1-Bhangu and defendant 3-Ramprasad and as the defendant 1-Bhangu wanted to sell his share to defendant 3-Ramprasad, therefore, the present plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of right of preemption against Bhangu, Kalabai and Ramprasad in the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29117

2 SA-115-2025 year 2018, in which compromise was arrived at amongst the parties and on that basis, a compromise decree was passed on 28/8/2018. He submits that as per the compromise decree, defendant 1-Bhangu was to execute the sale deed in favour of present plaintiffs 1-2 within a period of six months from the date of compromise application dated 10/5/2018, though compromise was recorded on 28/8/2018. As the plaintiffs 1-2 did not issue any notice within 6 months from 10/5/2018 regarding execution of sale deed by Bhangu in their favour, therefore, defendant 1-Bhangu after expiry of six months, rightly executed sale deed on 1/1/2019 in favour of defendant 4-Runi Bai and Courts below have committed an illegality in counting the period of six months from the date of compromise decree dated 28/8/2018 and not from the date of compromise application dated 10/5/2018. He submits that the appellant/defendant 4 is a bonafide purchaser without knowledge

of the aforesaid compromise decree dated 28/8/2018, as such, Courts below have committed an illegality in decreeing the suit. With these submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant 4 and perused the record.

4. Undisputedly, the plaintiffs and the defendant 1-Bhangu are co-owners of the land survey No.214 area 0.805 hectare having their 1/2-1/2 undivided share and upon filing civil suit by the plaintiffs for declaration of right of preemption, Courts below vide compromise decree dated 28/8/2018, decreed the suit with the direction to the defendant 1-Bhangu to execute the sale deed within a period of six months in favour of plaintiffs 1-2 with the further stipulation that if the defendant 1-Bhangu refuses to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs 1-2, they would be at liberty to get executed the decree.

5. In contravention of the aforesaid compromise decree dated 28/8/2018,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29117

3 SA-115-2025 defendant 1-Bhangu executed the sale deed on 1/1/2019 in respect of an area 0.403 hectare in favour of appellant/defendant 4-Runi Bai, which by the impugned judgment and decree has been declared to be null and void. At the same time, as the decree dated 28/08/2018 has not been executed so far, therefore, the Courts below have refused to declare the plaintiffs to be owner and in possession of the survey No.214/1 area 0.403 hectare, however, issued direction to defendant 1- Bhangu to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs 1-2 after receipt of sale consideration of Rs.2,10,000/-.

6. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as in presence of the compromise decree dated 28/8/2018 passed in favour of plaintiffs 1-2, this Court does not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by Courts below declaring the sale deed dated 1/1/2019 to be null and void.

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

Arun*