Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sewakram (Dead) Through Lrs Smt. ... vs Khoobchand (Dead) Through Lrs Smt. ... on 27 November, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61269
1 SA-2408-2025
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. 2408 of 2025
SEWAKRAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS SMT. RANIYABAI AND
OTHERS
Versus
KHOOBCHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS SMT. SUMANTRABAI AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saket Malik - Advocate for the appellants.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2025 passed by First
District Judge, Seoni, District Seoni, in RCA No.300033/2016 reversing the
judgment and decree dated 01.09.2016 passed by Third Civil Judge Class-I,
Seoni, in Civil Suit No.87-A/2013, whereby Trial Court decreed the original
plaintiff -Sewak (Dead) through LRs' suit filed for declaration of 1/7 share,
recovery of possession after partition as well as for declaring the partition as
null and void and at the same time dismissed the counter claim of the
defendants 1-2, which upon filing civil appeal by the defendants 1, 2 & 3,
First Appellate Court has dismissed the suit in its entirety and decreed the
counter claim of the defendants 1 -2.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that although
the plaintiff - Sewak became separate immediately after two years of his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61269
2 SA-2408-2025
marriage and a land area 8 acres situated in District Chhindwara was
purchased in his name during his minority, but that itself cannot be a ground
to dismiss the suit for partition until and unless the defendants are able to
prove partition in the family, especially in the circumstances where the suit
land survey nos.111 & 248 area 3.61 hectare is self acquired property of their
father Pachkodi. He submits that taking into consideration the entire oral and
documentary evidence available on record, Trial Court rightly decreed the
suit and dismissed the counter claim, but First Appellate Court has
committed an illegality in reversing the same and in dismissing the suit. He
also submits that the alleged document of partition dated 22.02.1984 was
also not placed on record, therefore, there was no reason to dismiss the suit.
With these submissions, he prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the
record.
4. Undisputedly, the suit land survey nos. 111 & 248 was purchased by
father Pachkodi on 19.09.1953 and at the same time, when the plaintiff -
Sewak was of the age of 15 years, the land an area 8 acre was purchased in
his name on 21.07.1959.
5. Although the land of the possession of the plaintiff stands in his
name, but First Appellate Court has taken into consideration the oral
evidence regarding partition of the property in the joint family of the parties
and come to conclusion that in fact the partition was effected in the life time
of father -Pachkodi and since prior to death of Pachkodi, the suit land has
been in possession of the defendant 1- Khoobchand and defendant 2-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61269
3 SA-2408-2025
Ramgovind and no other defendant has challenged the factum of partition by
filing any suit or counter claim.
6. Upon due consideration of the entire oral evidence available on
record, First Appellate Court has also found that the land having an area 8
acres was purchased by father in the name of plaintiff in his minority and
since the plaintiff became separate immediately after two years of his
marriage, therefore, the suit land was given in the share of defendants 1-2
and they are in possession. Further the factum of purchase of the land of
Ramgarh i.e. an area 8 acres, by the plaintiff from his self earning has not
been found proved by the Court.
7. Even after arguing at length, learned counsel for the appellants has
not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact
recorded by First Appellate Court regarding oral partition in the family and
upon due consideration of the entire material available on record, this Court
also does not find any illegality or perversity in the finding of partition
recorded by the First Appellate Court.
8. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
