Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Manti vs Mahu( Dead) Through Lrs Smt Kaushilya on 8 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 SA-1485-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
SA No. 1485 of 2024
(SMT MANTI AND OTHERS Vs MAHU( DEAD) THROUGH LRS SMT KAUSHILYA AND OTHERS )
Dated : 08-05-2025
Shri Varun Kumar Dubey - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sarang Soni - Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Shri Vineet Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent No.8-
State.
Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
There is a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal.
Appellants have moved IA No. 11767/2024 under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
Reply to the said application has been filed by the respondents and
after perusal of the same, I find that sufficient reasons have been explained
for delay in filing the appeal and therefore, IA No. 11767/2024 is allowed.
The delay occurred in filing the appeal is condoned.
Record of the courts below has already been received.
Heard on the question of admission and also on IA No. 11766/2024.
Appellants have filed this appeal assailing the judgment and decree
dated 09.02.2024 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Satna in Regular
Civil Appeal No. 160/2019 and also the judgment and decree dated
23.04.2019 passed by the I Civil Judge, Class I, Satna in
RCSA/900027/2014.
2 SA-1485-2024
The suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition, possession and declaration
was decreed by the trial court and appeal preferred by the present
appellants/defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed
affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
As per the stand taken by the learned counsel for the
appellants/defendants, the suit was barred by time and no declaration in
respect of the partition already took place on 17.04.2001 could be sought
because the plaintiffs were aware of the fact that the said partition took place
and acted upon and all the parties occupying and cultivating the land as per
their share, which had fallen in their favour in pursuance to the said partition
and therefore, the suit filed on 22.08.2006 for declaration was not
maintainable and even otherwise, the partition, which had already been acted
upon, could not be declared to be void. He has pointed out that the plaintiffs
witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-3 have already admitted about the partition of
17.04.2001 and stated that the defendants/appellants have been cultivating
the land as per their share, which came to them in pursuance to the partition
dated 17.04.2001.
Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants, I find that this appeal can be admitted on the following substantial
questions of law:-
A. Whether the finding of the courts below with regard
to the partition dated 17.04.2001 of the suit property
declaring the same null and void is perverse in
pursuance to the statements of PW-1 made in paras-10
and 12 and PW-3 in Para-7?
B. Whether the finding on the issue of limitation given
3 SA-1485-2024
by both the courts below is liable to be set aside in view
of the admission about the knowledge of partition dated
17.04.2001 made by the plaintiffs witnesses?
Since learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has already made
his appearance and the respondent No.8 State is a formal party, therefore, let
notice be issued to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 only on payment of process fee
within seven days by registered mode returnable within six weeks.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 seeks time to file reply
to the IA for grant of stay.
In view of the above, it is directed that status quo in respect of the suit
property, as it exists today, shall be maintained by the parties till the next
date of hearing.
List the matter in the week commencing 7th July, 2025.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
