Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish vs Gopal on 12 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7007
1 SA-2373-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2373 of 2022
JAGDISH
Versus
GOPAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shubham Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.
ORDER
This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is preferred
being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2022 in Regular
Civil Appeal No.18/2019 by the District Judge, Mandsaur arising out of
the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2019 in Regular Civil Suit No.276-
A/2017 by the Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Mandsaur (M.P.).
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellant/plaintiff and
respondent No.2/defendant No.2 Bansilal are the real brothers. Their
father Ramchandra was the Bhoomiswami of agricultural land of Survey
No.194 part of 216, part of 217, part of 218, part of 1485, part of 1496
and 1254 total area 1.402 hectares situated in Tehsil Mandsaur, District -
Mandsaur and he partitioned the properties on 13.07.2000 in his lifetime.
Ramchandra died on 12.07.2008. The plaintiff was allotted above-
mentioned agricultural land to the plaintiff and he was cultivating the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7007
2 SA-2373-2022
same. His name was mutated. On 21.03.2012, the defendant came to his
field and intimated that he has purchased the same from defendant no.2
and has got mutated the land and now he will cultivate the land and due
to this plaintiff filed a suit for seeking relief of permanent injunction that
his possession be not interfered by the defendant no.1/respondent no.1.
The defendant no.1/respondent no.1 filed the written statement and
denied the material facts stated in the plaint and stated that the father of
plaintiff and defendant no.1 has sold the 1.34 R.A. land to the defendant
no.1. There was no partition. The land has been mutated in his
possession. Ramchandra have sold his property to another persons also.
Therefore, the suit be dismissed.
3. The trial Court framed total 5 issues and recorded the evidence
of plaintiff Jagdish as PW-1, Rajesh as PW-2, Komal as PW-3 and
defendant no.2 examined himself as DW-1 and defendant no.1 examined
himself as DW-2, Sanjay as DW-3, Komal as DW-4.
4. The plaintiff adduced the Exhibit-P/1 to P/3 and defendants
adduced Exhibit-D/1 to D/15.
5. Appreciating the evidence, the trial Court recorded the finding
that it is not proved that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession or he is in
joint possession of the suit property and dismissed the suit findings and
judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed by the First
Appellate Court.
6. This Second Appeal has been preferred proposing the following
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7007
3 SA-2373-2022
substantial questions of law:-
"(1) या वाद के ववा दत भूिम पर आिधप य व पूव मे हुऐ मौ खक बंटवारे क
पु के िलऐ दश पी-3 का द तावेज जो बंशीलाल ने िन पा दत कया से बंशीलाल धारा 115
सा य वधान के अनुसार वबंिधत रहा है ?
(2) या ितवाद . 2 बंशीलाल ारा दश पी- 3 मे क गई वीकृ ित जो वबंधन
के िस ा त से बंिधत है के वपर त मौ खक सा य व ास यो य है ?
(3) या दश पी 1 नामांतरण पंजी जो धारा 35 सा य वधान के अनुसार शास कय
कत य के दौरान िनिमत हुआ जस पर रामच ने ह ता र कऐ के वपर त मो खक
सा य ाहय यो य है ?
(4) या दश पी- 1 नामा तरण पंजी मे वाद को भूिम वामी होने का उ लेख
दनांक 13.7.2000 को रामच जी के जीवनकाल मे होने के बाद वाद से ववा दत भूिम का
आिधप य वापस कब व कस दनांक को िलया गया कोई द तावेज ना तो तुत हुआ ना
दश त हुआ फर पी-1 क उपधारणा धारा 117 एम पी एल आर सी के आलोक मे वाद के
प म यो नह क गई ?"
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant & perused the record.
7. Exhibit-C/2 is the order dated 17.01.2011 passed by the
Tehsildar Mandsaur whereby the lands belonging to Ramchandra were
mutated on the legal heirs of Ramchandra and referring to this order, sale
deed (Exhibit-D/1) was executed by the defendant no.2 in favour of the
defendant No.1 on 06.05.2011 regarding Survey No.194 area 0.627 R.A.,
0.021 R.A. of Survey No.217 area 0.031 and area 0.042 R.A. of Survey
No.218 area 0.84 R.A., total survey no.3 and area 0.690 R.A. The
delivery of possession is mentioned at page no.3 of Exhibit-D/1. There is
no relief for cancellation of sale deed "possession follows title". On the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7007
4 SA-2373-2022
strength of 8th line of Exhibit-P/3, no definite proof of possession of
plaintiff can be interfered. Findings regarding possession are findings of
fact and that does not require interference in the second appeal. No
substantial questions of law as proposed arises. Hence, this second
appeal is not fit to be admitted. Accordingly, it is dismissed at admission
stage.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS
