Madhya Pradesh High Court

Subhash Chand Patel vs Lalta Bai on 5 May, 2025

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20657




                                                                  1                                   SA-2675-2023
                               IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
                                                       ON THE 5 th OF MAY, 2025
                                                  SECOND APPEAL No. 2675 of 2023
                                                       SUBHASH CHAND PATEL
                                                              Versus
                                                       LALTA BAI AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                               Shri R. P. Khare - Advocate for the appellant.
                               Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 6.

                               Shri Aditya Choubey - Government Advocate for respondent No.8/State.

                                                              JUDGMENT

This appeal was heard and reserved for orders on admission on 25/02/2025.

2 This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the appellant/plaintiff, who has lost in both the Courts, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14/07/2023 passed by the District Judge, Patan District Jabalpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.04/2021 (Subhash Chand Patel vs. Lalta Bai & others), whereby it has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed by the first Civil Judge Class-II, Patan District Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.176-A/2015 (Subhash Chand Patel vs. Lalta Bai & others) vide judgment and decree dated 29/01/2018, whereby it has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

3 At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20657

2 SA-2675-2023 submitted that Exchange Deed (Ex.P/4) between the parties was exhibited. However, both the courts dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that neither the original Exchange deed filed nor lead the secondary evidence after getting permission as per law. 4 Considered the arguments and perused the record. 5 Learned Civil Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.176-A/2015 (Subhash Chand Patel vs. Lalta Bai & others) vide judgment and decree dated 29/01/2018 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for the suit land situated in Mauza Lohari Tahsil Patan, District Jabalpur bearing Khasra No.184 area 0.67 hectare for declaration of title, permanent injunction and half share. The suit was dismissed basically on the ground that title on the said Khasra is not proved and Exchange Deed (Ex.P/4) is also not proved as per Evidence Act. Learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.04/2021 vide judgment and decree dated 14/07/2023 dismissed the appeal. 6 On perusal of the record, it is seen that at the time of recording of evidence of plaintiff-Subhash Chand Patel (PW-1) is reflected in Para-8 of the evidence sheet objection was taken by the defendant on Exchange Deed (Ex.P/4) on the ground that original copy is not filed and therefore, certified copy cannot be proved as permission for secondary evidence was not taken. Therefore, the document was marked tentatively by the Court and it was directed that at the time of passing the judgment, this objection shall be considered. 7 It is further seen that name of the plaintiff in the suit land was never exclusively recorded. In fact, suit land bearing Khasra No.184

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20657

3 SA-2675-2023

is recorded in the name of Jawahar Bahadur S/o Bhagwandas and Subhash S/o Moolchand and other family members jointly as reflected in Ex.P/3 Khasra of year 2002-2007 whereas the Exchange Deed (Ex.P/4) if of the year 2001. In the Kashra Ex.P/1 is of year 1991 to 1992, the name of Daulat Prasad S/o Halke Prasad is reflected, whereas in the year 2013 to 2017 Khasra No.184 is mutated in the name of Lalta Bai Widow of Jawahar. The learned trial Court in Para-9 has held that neither original document is filed nor the permission for secondary evidence is taken. It is also seen that no witness was called from the Registrar Officer to prove the documents. In Para-9 of the judgment, this documents has been discarded from consideration.

8 Learned trial Court has considered all the pleadings of both the parties including evidence and given finding on merits. The Appellate Court has also upheld the findings of the trial Court. 9 Thus, in view of above analysis, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal on which it can be admitted. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed at admission stage itself.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE