Madhya Pradesh High Court
Goverdhan & Ors. vs Surat Ram & Ors. on 21 July, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32797
1 SA-1685-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 21st OF JULY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1678 of 2005
SMT.SONA BAI (DEAD) THR. LRs. & ANR.
Versus
SURAT RAM (DEAD) THR. LRs. & ORS.
Appearance:
Shri Gyanendra Singh Baghel - Advocate for the appellants.
WITH
SECOND APPEAL No. 1685 of 2005
GOVERDHAN & ORS.
Versus
SURAT RAM (DEAD) THR. LRs. & ORS.
Appearance:
Shri Gyanendra Singh Baghel - Advocate for the appellants.
ORDER
Both the second appeals have arisen out of common judgment and
decree, filed by two sets of defendants, therefore, are being decided by this
common order.
2 . Both the second appeals have been filed by purchasers from the
defendants 1-6, who are descendants of Gava, challenging the judgment and
decree dated 11.03.2005 passed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of
First Additional District Judge, Chhindwara in civil appeal No.16-A/2005
affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2000 passed by Civil Judge
Class-II, Saunsar, District Chhindwara in civil suit No.13-A/1991 whereby
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32797
2 SA-1685-2005
both the Courts below have decreed the original respondent 1- Surat Ram
(now dead thr. LRs.)' suit for partition and separate possession in respect of
the agricultural land bearing survey No.363 area 3.080 hectare and survey
No.452 area 1.048 hectare declaring the plaintiff - Surat Ram to be
shareholder of 1/2 share.
3 . Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the
appellants are bonafide purchasers for consideration from the
descendants/LRs of Gava, who and the plaintiff - Surat Ram were having 1/2
- 1/2 equal share in the suit property. He submits that in the year 1955, Surat
Ram instituted a civil suit No.48-A/1955, which was decreed on 19.09.1956
by passing preliminary decree in which he was held to be shareholder of 1/2
share, but this decree was never executed. He submits that in the year 1960,
there was a compromise in between Surat Ram and Gava, in which Surat
Ram was given his share and Courts below have committed illegality in not
recognizing the aforesaid compromise in between Surat Ram and Gava. He
also submits that although in respect of aforesaid compromise, no document
was filed before trial Court, but a document showing such compromise had
been placed on record before first appellate Court by filing application
under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC proposing necessary pleadings by way of
application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which have wrongly been
rejected. With these submissions he prays for admitting both the second
appeals.
4 . Heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants/purchasers
during the suit and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32797
3 SA-1685-2005
5 . In the present case undisputedly Gava and Surat Ram were two
brothers and had 1/2 - 1/2 equal share in the suit property, which they
received from their father-Ghusya. Both the Courts below upon due
consideration of the material available on record have negated the plea of
compromise taken by defendants allegedly arrived at in the year 1960.
Further, there is nothing on record to show that in the aforesaid compromise
what was given to the plaintiff - Surat Ram, therefore and even upon
consideration of the document filed in additional evidence, this Court does
not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by Courts below. It
is also clear from the record that the appellants after filing of the written
statement were proceeded exparte and did not adduce any evidence in
support of their case.
6 . Taking into consideration the entire evidence available on record
and in view of the admitted fact that Surat Ram had 1/2 share, Courts below
have passed the decree of partition as well as separate possession in respect
of his 1/2 share, which does not appear to be illegal.
7. Upon due consideration of the entire material and in absence of any
substantial question of law, both the second appeals fail and are hereby
dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:32797
4 SA-1685-2005
