Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Prasad vs Rajababu on 20 June, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26650
1 SA-471-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 20 th OF JUNE, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 471 of 2015
JAGDISH PRASAD AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJABABU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brijendra Kumar Vaishya - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Shrey Diwan - Advocate for the respondent 1.
Shri Avnish Khatri - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014 passed by Addl. District
Judge, Deosar, District Singrauli, in civil appeals no.67A/2014 and 68A/2014
reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2012 passed by Civil Judge Class-
I, Deosar, Distt. Singrauli in civil suit no.22-A/2005 whereby trial Court
dismissed plaintiffs' suit in its entirety even after declaring the partition deed
dtd.11.11.2004 (Ex.P/1 and D/1) as null and void, which in appeal has been
reversed/modified.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the suit
property belonged to Ramautar (plaintiff 2, now dead) who was survived by two
sons Jagdish (Plaintiff 1) and Krishna Prasad (defendant 3), who in his life time
partitioned the suit property in the year 1982, whereby 1/3 - 1/3 share came in the
ownership of Ramautar, Jagdish and Krishna Prasad, but lateron the defendant 3
got illegally partitioned the land on the basis of registered partition deed dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26650
2 SA-471-2015
11.11.2004 and on that basis he was claiming exclusive ownership over the
property discarding the share of the plaintiffs. He submits that upon filing the suit
for declaring partition deed dated 11.11.2004 to be null and void and for declaring
shares of the plaintiffs and defendant 3 as well as for permanent injunction, trial
Court rightly declared the partition deed dated 11.11.2004 as null and void, but at
the same time, illegally discarded the partition of the year 1982 as well as the Will
dtd. 03.10.2005 (Ex.P/7) and wrongly dismissed the suit in its entirety. Against
the judgment and decree passed by trial Court, both the parties preferred civil
appeals. Plaintiffs preferred civil appeal in respect of the findings recorded by trial
Court with regard to partition of the year 1982 as well as Will (Ex.P/7) and the
defendants preferred civil appeal against the findings whereby partition deed dated
11.11.2004 was declared as null and void and first appellate Court upon due
consideration of the material available on record has rightly affirmed the findings
regarding the partition deed dated 11.11.2004 and found proved the partition of the
year 1982, but has wrongly disbelieved the Will dated 03.10.2005 (Ex.P/7)
executed by Ramautar in favour of the plaintiffs 2(a) to 2(d) (sons of plaintiff 1-
Jagdish Prasad). He submits that the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs
with regard to proof of the Will is sufficient to hold that it was executed by
Ramautar in favour of plaintiff 1's sons and accordingly plaintiffs ought to have
been declared owner of the property having 2/3 share. With these submissions, he
prays for admitting the second appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 1 supports the impugned
judgment and decree passed by Courts below and prays for dismissal of the second
appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly against the findings recorded by first appellate Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26650
3 SA-471-2015
regarding partition deed dated 11.11.2004, no appeal has been preferred by the
respondents who were beneficiary under the partition deed dated 11.11.2004.
6. In the present appeal only challenge has been made to the findings
recorded by Courts below in respect of Will dated 03.10.2005 (Ex.P/7) allegedly
executed by Ramautar in favour of plaintiff 1's sons i.e. the plaintiffs 2(a) to (d).
7. Both the Courts below in detail have discussed the evidence of the
plaintiffs' witnesses including the attesting witnesses, scribe of the Will and
Notary Kartar Nath Dwivedi and have come to conclusion that the plaintiffs have
not been able to prove due execution of the Will dtd.03.10.2005 (Ex.P/7) in
accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian
Succession Act and that the will is surrounded by several suspicious
circumstances, which have also not been removed by the plaintiffs.
8. Upon due consideration of the material available on record, this Court
does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by Courts below in respect of
execution of Will, which are also pure findings of facts and are not liable to be
interfered in the second appeal.
9. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
