Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Bhagwandevi D/O Late Shri ... vs Manu Bai on 20 March, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13919
1 FA-1937-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 1937 of 2022
SMT. BHAGWANDEVI D/O LATE SHRI NARAYANDAS
Versus
MANU BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinod Dubey - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Mukund Agrawal - Government Advocate for the respondent No.4/State.
JUDGMENT
The appeal was finally heard and reserved for orders on 06/01/2025.
2. This First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree
dated 24/11/2022 in RCSA No.2300087/2014 (Smt. Bhagwandevi vs. Manu
Bai & others) whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed regarding
suit property situated in village Nayagaon Patwari Halka Nayagaon Tahsil
Majhgawan District Satna (MP) bearing Khasra No.954/3/b/1 area 0.024
hectare for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaring the
Will dated 31/08/2009 as null and void which is against the interest of the
plaintiff and also for declaring that sale deed (Ex.P/10) executed by
defendants No.1 & 2 for the part land measuring 2137 sq.ft. in favour of
defendant No.3 dated 29/06/2013 as null and void. Regarding the same suit
property, defendant No.3 has filed a counter claim also.
3. In the trial Court, plaintiff has submitted that the suit property came to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13919
2 FA-1937-2022
her through her father (Guruji) on account of succession. Her mother expired
in the year 2006. It was further submitted that after her marriage, she used to
visit her father (Guruji) and mother at Sanjivini ashram and before the death
of her father Guru Narayandas she was living in the Ashram. She also used
to take care of him and on 31/08/2010 when she went to wake up to Guruji
i.e. her father, she found that he has been paralyzed. He was taken to doctor
and on 01/09/2010 her father Guru Narayandas had expired, last rites were
performed by defendants No. 1 & 2. She contacted Patwari for mutation by
succession and when it was put up before Tehsildar, she came to know that
defendants No.1 & 2 also filed an application on the basis of Will. She filed
objection and after hearing both the parties, Tehsildar Birsinghpur passed the
order dated 20/04/2012 in favour of the plaintiff. The appeal was filed by the
other party wherein without hearing the plaintiff, order of Tehsildar was
cancelled by sub Divisional Officer and on the basis of Will in favour of
defendants No. 1 & 2 mutation order has been passed in their favour. The
Will in favour of the defendants was forged.
4. On the other hand, defendants No. 1 to 3 filed written statements stating
that name of husband of plaintiff is Maheshwari Prasad and actual name of
the plaintiff is Bhagwati Devi but she has filed suit in the of Bhagwan Devi.
Late Narayandas was celibate and he has no son or daughter. Documents
filed by the plaintiff are forged obtained by fraud. Name of the plaintiff was
wrongly mutated in the revenue record which was set aside by the Sub -
Divisional Officer. Sale deed was executed in favour of defendant no. 3 by
defendant No.1 after the name of defendant No.1 was mutated.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13919
3 FA-1937-2022
5. Defendant No.3 has also filed counter claim claiming right out of the suit
property bearing Khasra No. 954/3/b/1 area 0.024 hectare for part land i.e.
2137 sq.ft. He submitted that entire property was mutated on the basis of
Will in favour of defendants No. 1 & 2 by Guruji and document in favour of
plaintiff is forged obtained by fraud.
6. After considering the pleadings and evidence, the learned trial Court
dismissed the suit as well as counter claim filed by defendant No.1. Against
the rejection, appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff on the ground
that trial Court has not properly considered the facts and legal position. In
Rin Pushtika (Ex.P/12), Ration Card (Ex.P/13) and Ex.P/61, name of
appellant/plaintiff is mentioned. Will (Ex.D/102) is not proved. Wrong order
has been passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue).
7. Learned trial Court has framed the following issues and recorded
findings in respect thereof, which read as under :-
. वाद िन कष
या व. नारायणदास के मृ यु के उपरांत वा दया को वाद त संप आराजी मांक
1. मा णत नह ं
495/3/ख/1 रकवा 0.024 हे टे यर उ रािधकार म ा हु ई ?
या व. नारायणदास ने अपने जीवनकाल म वाद त संप के संबंध मं वसीयतनामा
2. मा णत नह ं
ितवाद . 1 एवं 2 के प म िन पा दत कया था ?
या अनु वभागीय अिधकार मझगवां ारा करण . 82/अपील/2011-12 म पा रत
3. मा णत
आदे श दनांक 12.02.2013 अवैध एवं शू य घो षत कये जाने यो य है ?
या वाद त आराजी के अंश 2137 वग फ ट के संबंध म ितवाद . 1 एवं 2 ारा
4. मा णत
ितवाद . 3 क प म िन पा दत व य प दनांक 09.06.2013 अवैध एवं शू य है ?
या ितवाद . 3, ितवाद . 1 एवं 2 से य कये गये 2137 वगफ ट एवं उसम
5. मा णत नह ं
थत कमरे का वामी है ?
या ितवाद . 1 उ 2137 वगफ ट भूिम पर थत कमरे का र आिधप य वा दया
6. मा णत नह ं
से ा करने का अिधकार है ?
या ितवाद . 3 वा दया से 50,000/- पये वा षक क दर से म यवत लाभ ा
7. मा णत नह ं
करने का अिधकार है ?
िनणय क कं डका-
8 अ. या वाद एवं ितदावा का उिचत मू यांकन कर पया याय शु क दया गया है ? 60 एवं 65 के
अनुसार
िनणय क कं डका-
8 ब. य द नह ं तो भाव ? 60 एवं 65 के
अनुसार
िनणय क कं डका-
9. सहायता एवं वाद यय ?
66 के अनुसार
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13919
4 FA-1937-2022
8. In the trial Court, plaintiff has exhibited 64 documents from Ex.P/1
to Ex.P/64 and has examined witnesses Bhagwan Devi (PW-1) who has
exhibited the documents in para 17 & 18 of the judgment from Ex.P/1 to
Ex.P/21 and in para 38, in additional examination-in-chief, documents
Ex.P/22 to Ex.P/27 and further in additional, examination-in-chief
documents from Ex.P/28 to Ex.P/64 and also examined Tulsiram Shukla
(PW-2), Vishnudatt Rajput (PW-3) and Santoshsharan (PW-4).
9 . Defendants have examined witnesses Devendra Kumar Mishra
(DW-1) who has exhibited documents from Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/15.
Namonarayan Das (DW-2) who has exhibited documents Ex.D/16 to
Ex.D/139. Shri Shivnaresh Mishra (DW-3), Rajmani Pandey (DW-4),
Dayashankar (DW-5), Dhirendra Gautam (DW-6) who has exhibited
documents from Ex,D/140 to Ex.D/145.
10. The question before this Court is whether judgment of the trial
Court is illegal on the ground that proper appreciation of pleadings and
evidence was not done.
11. Perused the records. In considered view of this Court that
document and evidence produced by the plaintiff before the trial Court was
not reliable or sufficient. The reasons in detail are mentioned by the trial
Court in judgment from paras 14 - 25 regarding issue no.1. Plaintiff has not
filed any documents of year prior to death of Narayandas (Guruji) which
established her date of birth and her father's name. In Ex.P/12 Rin Pushtika,
her name was recorded as Bhagwan Devi D/o Late Shri Narayandas but the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13919
5 FA-1937-2022
Rin Pushtika (Ex.P/12) was prepared in the year 2012 i.e. later period. The
plaintiff was 43 years at the time of filing of the suit i.e. on 22/07/2014.
Plaintiff in her cross-examination in para 17 has submitted that she had
studied but she has not filed her mark-sheet etc. Defendants have examined
Chief Executive Officer Rajmani Pandey (DW-4) who has stated that
Identity Card (Ex.P/23) has not been issued by him in favour of plaintiff
wherein his forged signature has been mentioned. In old registered Will
(Ex.D/80) executed by Narayandas, there is no mention that plaintiff is his
daughter, therefore finding on issue No.1 is confirmed.
12. Regarding issue no.2, it is seen that it is not established that at the
time of making the Will, Narayandas was physically and mentally fit.
Defendant witness No.3 Shiv Naresh Mishra in his statement has not stated
that at the time of making the Will, Narayandas's physical and mental
condition was fit, therefore finding against defendants No. 1 & 2 with regard
to Will and counter claim cannot be dislodged. The trial Court has
appreciated the evidence and given findings from Paras 26 to 58 which is
proper and legally correct.
13. Regarding issue no.3, it is seen that SDO (Revenue) was never
competent to give a finding on the Will which was disputed, therefore his
order dated 12/02/2013 in case No.82/Appeal/2011-12 is found to be illegal
and beyond jurisdiction. The issue has been correctly decided by trial Court
in Para 59.
14. Regarding issue no.4, when defendant No.1 was not legally
entitled to the suit property, therefore he should not have sold the suit
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13919
6 FA-1937-2022
property to defendant No.3. Accordingly, sale deed (Ex.P/10) dated
29/06/2013 regarding sale of part property measuring area 2137 sq.ft. is null
and void. Accordingly, findings in para 59 of the judgment on issues no. 5, 6
& 7 are also confirmed. Therefore, it is proved that name of the plaintiff in
revenue record was entered by the Tehsildar without proper enquiry and
order of Tehsildar in favour of defendant is also erroneous for the reasons
mentioned above. Regarding Ex.D/102 (an unregistered Will) from perusal
of reasons mentioned in para 13, it is seen that Will is not proved.
15. Therefore, considering the over all facts and circumstances of the
case, it is found that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit and no
interference can be made in the judgment and decree dated 24/11/2022
passed in Civil Suit No.2300087 of 2014.
16. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
mc
