Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sitara vs Ram Prasad Patel on 21 March, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
SA No.2388/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON 21st OF MARCH, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2388 of 2022
SITARA AND OTHERS
Versus
RAM PRASAD PATEL AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri Shiv Kumar Dubey - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Arvind Soni - Advocate for respondents 2 to 6.
Shri Vikram Singh Choudhary - Advocate for respondent 7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants 1-3
challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2022 passed by VIII
District Judge, Sagar in RCA No.11/2017 reversing the judgment and decree
dated 19.12.2016 passed by Ninth Civil Judge Class-II, Sagar in civil suit
No.23-A/2014 whereby trial court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiffs, but
appellate Court has decreed the suit against the defendants 1-3 in respect of
land area 300 sq.ft. of survey No.150/3.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1-3 submits that
although the defendants 1-3 vide registered sale deed dated 06.01.1986
(Ex.P/13) purchased an area 1500 sq.ft. of survey No.150/3 from plaintiff 1-
Ramprasad, but later on the defendants 1-3/appellants gave an amount of
Rs.3,000/- to son of Plaintiff-Ramprasad Patel namely Ramcharan Patel and
raised construction of latrine and bathroom over an area 300 sq.ft. which is in
dispute and he submits that the construction raised over an area 300 sq.ft. has
remained in knowledge of the plaintiffs since beginning and before filing of
the civil suit on 24.11.2011 they did not take any action regarding removal of
alleged encroachment or recovery of possession, therefore, the suit is clearly
barred by limitation, which was rightly dismissed by trial court but first
appellate court has committed illegality in decreeing the suit by reversing the
judgment and decree of trial court. With these submissions he prays for
admission of second appeal.
3. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents support the judgment
and decree passed by first appellate Court and prays for dismissal of second
appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. In the present case title of plaintiff 1-Ramprasad over the disputed land
area 300 sq.ft. is not in dispute. Undisputedly the defendants 1-3 purchased
an area 1500 sq.ft. from plaintiff 1-Ramprasad Patel vide registered sale deed
dated 06.01.1986 (Ex.P-13) and even as per the case of defendants 1-3, they
took possession over disputed area 300 sq.ft. upon making payment of
Rs.3,000/- to son of Ramprasad Patel namely Ramcharan Patel and there is
no document in respect of payment of consideration to Ramcharan Patel or
purchase of land from Ramcharan Patel or Ramprasad Patel, therefore, it is
clear that the defendants 1-3 are in possession of disputed land without any
document of title.
6. Although trial court dismissed the suit holding it to be barred by
limitation, which has been decreed by first appellate court, but in my
considered opinion in the light of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the suit
filed for recovery of possession based on title could not have been dismissed
by trial court on the ground of limitation because the defendants 1-2
/appellants did not take the plea of adverse possession. Even as per
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, they have not taken
plea of adverse possession.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, interference in the judgment and
decree passed by first appellate Court is declined for want of involvement of
any substantial question of law.
8. Resultantly, the second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
