Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Sharan Kahar & Ors vs Vishwanath Kahar & Ors on 20 June, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26621
1 SA-689-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 20th OF JUNE, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 689 of 2004
RAM SHARAN KAHAR & ORS
Versus
VISHWANATH KAHAR & ORS
Appearance:
Shri A.P. Singh and Shri Saurabh Pathak - Advocates for appellants.
Shri Dileep Kumar Pandey - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2004 passed by Third
Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Sidhi, District Sidhi in civil appeal
No.18-A/2004 affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.03.1990 passed
by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Sidhi in civil suit No.35-A/1988 whereby
Courts below have concurrently dismissed the plaintiffs/appellants' suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land survey
No.112, 123, 124, 126, 294, 296, 300, 301 and 305 situated in Village Jonki,
Tahsil Sihawal, District Sidhi.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that there was
about 16-17 acres land in the ownership of Vahan Kahar, who was survived
by three sons namely Sahdev, Jagai and Baldev. Sahdev had died issueless.
He submits that there was partition in the family, in which Sahdev was given
his share, which due to non-payment of 'lagaan' by him, went in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26621
2 SA-689-2004
ownership of State Government and the land came in the share of Jagai is
already in possession of the defendants, whereas the disputed lands fell in
the share of plaintiffs' father Baldev, however no land remained in the share
of Vahan, and Baldev and Vahan remained joint. Accordingly, the land was
recorded in the name of plaintiffs' father upto the year 1974-75 and thereafter
without there being any order of the competent authority the name of Jagai
was also mutated in the revenue record in the year 1974-75. He submits that,
accordingly the plaintiffs are bhoomiswai of the land and in possession and
the entry of the name of defendants' father Jagai or of defendants being
without any basis ought to have been ignored. Alternatively he submits that
as the plaintiffs are in possession of the land exclusively, they have acquired
title by adverse possession also and Courts below have committed illegality
in ignoring admissible oral and documentary evidence adduced in that
regard. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the decisions in
the case of Om Prakash vs. State of M.P., (1997) 2 MPJR 306 and Kanahiya
and Ors. vs. State of M.P. and another, AIR 2012 MP 186. With these
submissions he prays for admission of second appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents/defendants supports the
impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below and prays for
dismissal of second appeal with the submissions that concurrent findings of
facts recorded by Courts below regarding title and possession are not liable
to be interfered with within the limited scope of second appeal under Section
100 of CPC.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26621
3 SA-689-2004
5. Although in the suit it has been alleged by the plaintiffs that there
remained 16-17 acres of land in the ownership of Vahan, but no
pleadings/details have been given about falling of lands of certain survey
numbers in the share of Sahdev and Jagai and even no documentary evidence
has been placed on record to show that certain lands fell in the share of
Sahdev and Jagai. The suit has been filed describing the suit lands only and
the revenue record has also been placed on record in respect of the aforesaid
survey numbers of the land, which although were recorded previously in the
name of Baldev but from the year 1974-75 suit lands are recorded in the joint
name of plaintiffs and defendants and their fathers.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter both the
Courts below have found that suit lands are joint lands of the plaintiffs and
defendants and dismissed the claim of the defendants regarding exclusive
ownership over the suit lands on the basis of ownership as well as on the
basis of adverse possession.
7 . Upon due consideration of the material available on record, this
Court does not find any illegality 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. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26621
4 SA-689-2004
ss
