Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Shrivastava vs Smt. Gyanmala on 28 July, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34543
1 SA-1475-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 28 th OF JULY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1475 of 2016
SANJAY SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. GYANMALA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Paresh Pareek - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Vivek Baderiya - Advocate for respondent 1.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants 1-2
challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2016 passed by Additional
District Judge, Pawai (Link-Court), Panna in Civil Appeal No.13-A/2013
reversing/affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2010 passed by Civil
Judge Class-I, Panna, in Civil Suit No.13-A/2008 whereby trial Court decreed the
respondent 1/plaintiff's suit for declaration of title, restoration of possession and
mesne profit and at the same time, dismissed the counter claim filed by defendants
1-2/appellants, however, upon civil appeal filed by defendants 1-2, first appellate
Court even after affirming the finding in relation to title of the plaintiff dismissed
the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove delivery of possession
and at the same time, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by trial Court
dismissing the counter claim of the defendants 1-2.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1-2 submits that first
appellate Court has committed an illegality in affirming the findings recorded by
trial Court regarding title of the respondent 1/plaintiff whereas the defendants 1-2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34543
2 SA-1475-2016
are owner and in possession of the property. He submits that as the defendant 3 -
Brijendra Kumar Shrivastava had already sold his part of property, therefore, he
had no title over the suit property and hence the plaintiff cannot claim any title
over the suit property. He further submits that as the defendants 1-2 are owner and
in possession of the suit property, therefore, both the Courts below have also
committed an illegality in dismissing the counter claim. With these submissions,
he prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent 1/plaintiff supports the
impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below regarding dismissal of
counter claim and submits that in view of the concurrent findings recorded by
Courts below regarding title of the plaintiff over the suit property, first appellate
Court has committed an illegality in reversing the judgment and decree passed by
trial Court in favour of the plaintiff and in respect of dismissal of plaintiff's claim
another S.A.No.1459/2016 has been filed. With these submissions he prays for
dismissal of the second appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. In the present case, it is undisputed fact on record that the defendants 1-3
are real brothers and defendant 3- Brijendra Kumar Shrivastava had sold the
disputed property to the respondent 1/plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated
21.11.1994. It is clear from the record that despite service of summons of the
plaint, the defendant 3 did not appear and did not contest the case by filing written
statement or otherwise and was proceeded exparte. The defendants 1-2 have come
with the case that as the defendant 3 had already sold his part of the property in
the year 1998, therefore, he had no right to sell the suit property to the plaintiff,
however, the defendants 1-2 have not been able to produce any document on
record to show that the defendant 3 had sold his part of the suit property. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34543
3 SA-1475-2016
defendants 1-2 have also not produced any document on record to show that the
suit property belonged to them.
6. After taking into consideration the entire documentary and oral evidence
available on record, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the
plaintiff had purchased the suit property from defendant 3- Brijendra Kumar
Shrivastava and accordingly she is owner of it and at the same time, held that as
the defendants 1-2 have failed to prove their title over the suit property, therefore,
dismissed the counter claim filed for declaring the registered sale deed dated
21.11.1994 (Ex.P/1) to be null and void.
7. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1-2
has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the concurrent
judgment and decree passed by Courts below.
8. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
