Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sangeeta Dharwa vs Ravindra Kumar Maheshwari on 12 June, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 SA-1217-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
SA No. 1217 of 2024
(SANGEETA DHARWA AND OTHERS Vs RAVINDRA KUMAR MAHESHWARI AND OTHERS )
Dated : 12-06-2025
Shri Sachin Jain - Advocate for the appellants.
None for the respondent No.1 instead of service of notice.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandey - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State.
This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs who have lost
in both the Courts. At the time of argument, it was submitted that property
was ancestral and not self earned property of the plaintiff's father, therefore,
their father Hukumchand Maheshwari could not have willed the entire suit
property by Will Ex. P/6 and Family Settlement Deed Ex. D/1 should have
been registered. It is submitted that both the Courts ignored Sections 6 and 8
of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment passed in the
case of Pramod Kumar S/o Ramchandra Jain Vs. Vimladevi Wd/o Parasmal
Jain and others; 2017(1) M.P.L.J. 512 and Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Ramvatar
Bhama, (2018) 10 S.C.R. 503.
Considered the arguments and perused the judgment passed by the Second
District Judge, Khandwa in RCA No. 34/2023 (Sangeeta and others Vs.
Ravindra Kumar and another) - judgment and decree dated 19.01.2024 by
which the appeal of the plaintiffs has been rejected and decree of the trial
Court in R.C.S.A. 123/2018 - judgment and decree dated 27.08.2022
dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title, permanent
2 SA-1217-2024
injunction, partition and possession has been rejected.
In the judgment of Pramod Kumar (Supra) in paragraph 6 it has ben held
that when the document does not contain recital of past events but of present
events, the Court has to look to the document and a partition may be affected
orally but if it is subsequently reduced into a form of document and
document purports by itself to effect a division and embodies all the terms of
bargain, it will be necessary to register it. In the case of Sitaram (Supra) in
para 10 it has been held that when there is relinquishment of rights of other
heirs of property then the document should be compulsorily registrable under
Section 17 of the Registration Act. In this case looking to Ex. D/1 titled as
"Parivarik Vyavastha Patra" there is transfer of property as seen from perusal
of the documents relating to partition, transfer/ relinquishment of various
properties, therefore, prima-facie the appeal is arguable and it is admitted on
the following substantial questions of law :-
"1. Whether the learned First Appellate Court was right
in passing impugned judgment and decree dated 19.01.2024 by
confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2022 by correctly
interpreting and applying Section 6 and Section 8 of the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and dismissing the suit filed
by the appellants for declaration, partition, permanent injunction
and possession of the suit property ?
2. Whether the learned First Appellate Court has
committed error of law while passing the impugned judgment and
3 SA-1217-2024
decree dated 19.01.2024 and thereby declaring the respondent
No.1 as owner of the suit property on the basis of alleged Family
Settlement dated 08.09.1994 [ Exhibit D/1] and Will dated
28.07.2014 [Exhibit P/6] ? "
On payment of P.F. within 7 working days, issue notice to
respondent No.1.
Till the next date of hearing, both the parties shall maintain
status quo regarding the suit property.
List the case after receipt of service report.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
V. JUDGE
VSG
