Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin vs Shri Ganpat (Dead) Through Lrs Sanjay on 27 November, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61295
1 SA-2417-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 27th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2417 of 2025
SACHIN
Versus
SHRI GANPAT (DEAD) THROUGH LRS SANJAY
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Ojha and Shri Anmol Dubey - Advocates for the appellant.
ORDER
This second appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant challenging
the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2025 passed by Principal District Judge,
Burhanpur in regular civil appeal No.115/2024 reversing the judgment and
decree dated 27.09.2024 passed by 6th Civil Judge Junior Division,
Burhanpur in RCSA no.167/2018, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the
respondent/plaintiff's suit filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession
and permanent injunction in respect of disputed land having an area 95 sq.ft.
and upon filing civil appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court has
decreed the suit.
2 . Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that the
plaintiff is not owner of the suit land and the defendant has also not
encroached upon the plaintiff's land but the defendant has raised construction
on the land owned and possessed by him. He submits that taking into
consideration the major discrepancies in the demarcation report and oral
evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61295
2 SA-2417-2025
filed by respondent/plaintiff, but the First Appellate Court taking into
consideration the illegal demarcation report, decreed the suit. He submits that
the oral testimony of Shivani Sathe (PW-4), who did the demarcation, itself
shows that infact the demarcation was not done in accordance with the
relevant rules and as such the same was rightly discarded by the Trial Court,
but the First Appellate Court has committed an illegality in taking into
consideration the same and in decreeing the suit on the basis of weakness of
the case of defendant. With these submissions he prays for admission of the
second appeal.
3 . Heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and perused the
record.
4. On the basis of documentary and oral evidence available on record
and taking into consideration the admissions made by defendant -Sachin
(DW-1), as has been considered in paragraph 56 of the impugned judgment,
First Appellate Court has held that the plot no.161 belongs to the plaintiff
and the plot no.159 belongs to the defendant.
5 . Since there is dispute about encroachment over the suit land,
therefore, First Appellate Court has taken into consideration the demarcation
report (Ex.P/11 to P/13) and in absence of any rebuttal to the said
demarcation report, First Appellate Court found that the defendant has made
encroachment over an area 95 sq.ft., which is a part of plot no.161, owned
and possessed by the plaintiff.
6 . The First Appellate Court in paragraph 68 of the impugned
judgment, has also considered and recorded the conduct of defendant-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61295
3 SA-2417-2025
Sachin, who in rebuttal to the demarcation report available on record, did not
give consent for another demarcation, therefore, in my considered opinion
looking to the conduct of the defendant, it cannot be said that the First
Appellate Court has committed any illegality in considering the available
demarcation report to hold that the defendant has made encroachment over
an area 95 sq.ft. of the land of plot no.161 belonged to the plaintiff.
7. In presence of the aforesaid admission and conduct of the defendant,
learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has not been able to point out any
illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.
8 . Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this
second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
