Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deokibai vs Sanskrit Pustokonnati Sabha ... on 14 May, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23134
1 SA-888-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 14th OF MAY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 888 of 2008
DEOKIBAI
Versus
SANSKRIT PUSTOKONNATI SABHA VIDHYAPITH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Malvi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Mahendra Pateriya - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Laxmikant Dwivedi - Advocate for respondent No.3.
Shri Anupam Chaturvedi - Panel Lawyer for respondents No. 4 & 5.
JUDGMENT
Heard on the question of admission.
2. This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure
is filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and
decree dated 24/04/2008 passed by the Second Additional Judge to
the Court of District Judge, Chhindwara in Regular Civil Appeal
No.8-A/2008 (Sanskrit Pustekonnati Sabha Vidhyapeeth, Etawa and
others vs Deoki Bai and others), whereby set aside the judgment and
decree of the trial Court passed by the Third Civil Judge Class-II,
Chhindwara in Civil Suit No.57-A/2004 (Deoki Bai vs. Sanskrit
Pustekonnati Sabha Vidhyapeeth, Etawa and others) vide judgment
and decree dated 23/09/2004.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23134
2 SA-888-2008
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case of
reversal of decree. He further submits that in Civil Suit No.57-A/2004
which was filed for permanent injunction by the plaintiff for the suit
property situated in Village Jamun Jhiri Tahsil and District
Chhindwara for the suit land mentioned in detail in para 1 of the
judgment of trial Court. Learned trial Court held that plaintiff is the
owner of the suit property on the basis of 99 years lease and,
therefore it was directed that respondents shall not interfere in the suit
land without due process of law. The issue No.1 framed by the trial
Court was whether on account of lease plaintiff is the owner and
possessor of the suit land for 99 years. Issue No.2 was whether
defendants are trying to interfere without due process of law in the
suit land.
4. In an appeal, learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.
8-A/2008 vide judgment and decree dated 24/04/2008 held that
plaintiff is not having any valid title or possession on the suit land
and, therefore set aside the decree. Against which this second appeal
before this Court on the ground that First Appellate Court was wrong
in holding that the then Sarvarhakar Mahipal Singh has no authority
to issue the Patta (Ex.P/1) in the name of the appellant for 99 years.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the year 1969
Shri Mahipal Singh was the Sarvarhakar of the above property of
respondent No.1/Sanskrit Pushtokonnati Sabha Vidhyapeeth, Etawa ,
which is a religious Trust in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant Deoki
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23134
3 SA-888-2008
Bai has paid Rs.3000/- to Shri Mahipal Singh, Sarvarhakar against which
Mahipal Singh issued a Patta in the name of appellant Deoki Bai on
06/06/1969 for 99 years.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in Ex.P/1 itself, it
is mentioned that lease rent of Rs.3000/- has been taken and
thereafter, Patta has been granted. It is submitted that Harishankar
(PW-2) is the witness of Patta. Ghashram (PW-3) is the husband of
Deoki Bai (PW-1). In Para-12 of cross-examination, this witness has
stated that he had got the land in the name of his wife Deoki Bai from
Baba. Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly admitted that even
after getting 99 years of Patta on 06/06/1969, the fact of lease or
possession was never mentioned in any Khasra or any revenue
record.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
8. On perusal of the Patta, it is seen that it is not a registered Patta.
On perusal of the statement of Deoki Bai (PW-1) it is seen that in
para-9 of her statement, she stated that she purchased the suit land @
Rs.1000/- per acre and after paying the sale consideration of
Rs.3000/- to Mahipal Singh, she purchased the land, however, it is
seen that sale-deed has not filed.
9. On perusal of the judgment of first Appellate Court, it is seen in
para-9 wherein it is mentioned that lease agreement for 99 years has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23134
4 SA-888-2008
to be compulsory registered and, therefore Ex.P/1 does not give any
benefit to the plaintiff even reading it for collateral purposes cannot
be done as held by this Court in the case of Kapoor Chand Jain vs.
Choudhari Prasanna Kumar, 1994(II) MPWN 155 . Therefore, an
unregistered lease-deed is not admissible due to want of registration.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record, this Courts finds that appellate Court has considered all
the pleading, evidence and legal aspects of the case and passed the
correct judgment. No substantial question of law arises.
11. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with
the findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure
is well defined by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This
Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact until or unless the same
is perverse or contrary to material on record. [See: Narayan
Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, (2009) 5 SCC
264, Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others, (2001) 7 SCC
189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Antoher, (2012) 8 SCC
148, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011) 1 SCC 158
Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288,
Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare,
(2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and
Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264].
12. Thus, in view of above analysis, no substantial question of law
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23134
5 SA-888-2008
arises in this appeal on which it can be admitted. In the result, the
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at admission stage itself.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
mc
