Madhya Pradesh High Court
Late Shri Mohan Gurjer Through Lrs Gopal vs Sarita on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30517
1 S.A. No.11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
SECOND APPEAL No. 11 of 2025
LATE SHRI MOHAN GURJER THROUGH LRS GOPAL AND OTHER
Versus
SARITA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri V.A.Katkani - Advocate for the appellant/defendants.
Shri Vibhor Khandelwal - Advocate for the respondent No.1 &
2/plaintiffs.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - Government Advocate for the
respondent No.3/State
Reserved on : 08/10/2025
Delivered on : 16/10/2025
======================================================
JUDGMENT
Heard on the question of admission.
This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30517
the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree
dated 06/12/2024 passed by Principal District Judge, Ratlam, District-
Ratlam (M.P.) in RCA No.36/2022, whereby the judgment and decree
dated 29/06/2022 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratlam,
District-Ratlam (M.P.) in RCS-A /2500021/2015, was affirmed.
Facts of the case, in short are as under :-
2. The respondents/plaintiffs had filed a civil suit seeking declaration
of title, declaratory and permanent injunctions and possession concerning
the agricultural land bearing Survey No.220/1 admeasuring 0.600 hectare
situated in Village-Palsodi, Tehsil and District-Ratlam.
3. The respondents/plaintiffs contended that the Plaintiff No.1 was the
daughter-in-law of Plaintiff No.2 who resided with her after the demise of
her husband (Vinod Kumar) on 04/04/2011. It was alleged that the
defendants, namely Mohan (Defendant No. 1), Dashrath (Defendant
No.2, son of Mohan), and Bagdibai (Defendant No.3, daughter of
Mohan), had extended their house eastward and encroached upon the
plaintiffs' land by constructing a mud wall and later a new wall within the
boundary of Survey No.220/1. The plaintiffs claimed that despite
objections and directions by the Tehsildar to prohibit construction
pending demarcation, the defendants continued to build the wall and
further obstructed the plaintiffs' use of the land by denying access and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30517
damaging crops. It was further contended that allegations were also made
regarding physical assault and threats against the plaintiffs' family when
they resisted the defendants' encroachment.
4. The appellants/defendants, in their written statement, denied the
allegations except the admitted facts and contended that the house, wall,
and path in question had been in their family's possession for over a
hundred years. They claimed that the new wall was constructed only after
the old one had collapsed and that the plaintiffs were attempting to block
their passage and harass them through false litigation motivated by malice
and enmity. It was further contended that a violent altercation had
occurred during the dispute, resulting in serious injuries and even the
death of a relative of Defendant No.1, for which a police report had been
lodged. The defendants therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit with
special damages, denying any encroachment or illegality on their part.
5. The learned Trial Court after considering the material placed on
record and evaluating the evidence of both parties found that the plaintiffs
had established their ownership and possession over the disputed land.
The learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs,
declaring Plaintiff No.1 as the owner and occupant of the disputed
property. The defendants were permanently restrained from interfering
with the plaintiffs' possession, and were directed to remove the
encroachment shown in Exhibit C-2, failing which the Government was
directed to remove it in accordance with law and recover expenses from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30517
the defendants.
6. Being aggrieved by this judgement and decree, the
appellants/defendants preferred an appeal before the learned First
Appellate Court, which, after due consideration, dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
7. Being aggrieved by which, the appellants/defendants preferred the
present second appeal proposing the following substantial questions of
law :-
"1. Whether defendant application under order 41 rule 21
C.P.C. of I.A. No. 2 and 4 wrongly dismissed which is the base
of the case?
2. Whether first appellate court find that plaintiff did not prove
his case even then the suit of plaintiff not dismissed?
3. Whether merely solely statement of Revenue Inspector Tarun
Raghuvanshi which is wholly unreliable even the plaintiff suit
was not dismissed?
4. Whether plaintiff suit land survey no 220/1 Rakba 0.600 is
admittedly plaintiff in possession as per her statement then
Encroachment of defendant dies not arise and suit liable to be
dismissed?
5. Whether disputed land (House) of defendant situated in Govt.
Abadi land in Survey No. 201/1/2 P-11 which is in the name of
defendant then Encroachment of defendant does not arise?
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30517
6. Whether both the Court below finding is perverse and not
according to law?
7. Whether the Way of demarcation is not according Section
129of M.P.L.R. Code?
8. Whether demarcation first report is in favour of defendant
and then after second demarcation report in favour of the
plaintiff which is unreliable than again defendant filed
application in trial court for demarcation but trial court
wrongly dismissed the application?"
8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order of
the learned Courts below was erroneous and contrary to law. The
appellants highlighted that the plaintiff had admitted in his statement to
sowing crops on the disputed land and acknowledged the road adjoining
the defendant's property. Despite this, the learned Trial Court decreed the
plaintiff's suit, disregarding the evidence of prior lawful possession and
demarcation. The appellants further argued that the demarcation
conducted under the plaintiff's influence was unilateral, illegal, and
contrary to revenue records and that the Revenue Inspector had failed to
perform a proper demarcation, as admitted in his own statements,
evidence, including Panchnama reports, maps, and witness testimonies,
indicated that the demarcation was flawed and measurements were
inaccurate, and proper procedure was not followed, yet the learned Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30517
Court relied solely on selective evidence and disregarded relevant
documents, including the Panchayat certificate, Khasra copy, and
electricity bills confirming the defendants' possession of the disputed
property.
9. It was further submitted by the appellants that the learned First
Appellate Court also relied entirely on the statement of Revenue
Inspector (Tarun Raghuvanshi), ignoring cross-examination and
admissions that demonstrated the demarcation was illegal and inaccurate.
It was urged that the appellants had raised objections to the demarcation
and had sought proper redress, which were disregarded by the
subordinate courts. In light of the foregoing discussion, the appellants
prayed that the evidence on record revealed that both the Trial and First
Appellate Courts failed to examine material facts, documents and
statutory procedure resulting in serious errors in dismissing the
appellant's claim and upholding the plaintiff's suit.
10. The respondents/plaintiffs has expressly supported and affirmed the
findings and conclusions reached by the courts below, indicating
agreement with both the reasoning and the outcome of the decisions
rendered at the subordinate judicial levels.
Analysis and conclusion :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30517
11. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the
entire records available.
12. It is settled law that Section 100 CPC confers jurisdiction on the
High Court to entertain a second appeal only when it is satisfied that the
case involves a substantial question of law. In Suresh Lataruji Ramteke
vs. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar & Ors, (2023) 17 SCC 624 (2-Judge
Bench) the scope of interference by a High Court in a second appeal has
been enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows :
"12. The jurisprudence on Section 100 CPC is rich and
varied. Time and again this Court in numerous judgments has
laid down, distilled and further clarified the requirements that
must necessarily be met in order for a second appeal as laid
down therein, to be maintainable, and thereafter be
adjudicated upon. Considering the fact that numerous cases
are filed before this Court which hinge on the application of
this provision, we find it necessary to reiterate the principles.
"13. The requirement, most fundamental under this section is
the presence and framing of a "substantial question of law". In
other words, the existence of such a question is sine qua non
for exercise of this jurisdiction. [Panchugopal Barua v.
Umesh Chandra Goswami, (1997) 4 SCC 713 (two-Judge
Bench)]
"15. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [Santosh
Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 a Bench of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30517
three Judges, held as under in regard to what constitutes a
substantial question of law:
(a) Not previously settled by law of land or a binding
precedent;
(b) Material bearing on the decision of case; and
(c) New point raised for the first time before the High Court is
not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of
the matter. Therefore, it will depend on facts of each case."
13. This Court is of considered opinion that the evidence adduced by
Tarun Raghuvanshi (CW/1) regarding the demarcation of Survey
No.220/1 at Village-Palsodi was credible and reliable. The witness stated
that he conducted the demarcation on 01/04/2019 using an electronic total
station machine, taking the north-eastern corner of Survey No.218/1 and
the north-western corner of Survey No.220/2 as the base. The
demarcation revealed that the appellants/defendants, specifically Gopal,
son of the late Mohan Gurjar, had encroached upon a 3.5-meter stretch on
the western side of the northern boundary and a 15-meter stretch on the
northern side of the western boundary of the disputed land, part of which
contained a mud hut. The witness prepared a Panchnama (Exhibit C/2), a
trace map (Exhibit C/3), and a demarcation report (Exhibit C/4), all of
which consistently showed the encroachment. Upon consideration of the
evidence, no discrepancies were found during the cross-examination, and
the report clearly indicated that the land in dispute belonged to the
respondents/plaintiffs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30517
14. This Court is further inclined to hold that the appellants/defendants
failed to establish ownership of the disputed land through their
documentary evidence, which pertained to Survey No.221/1 and not
Survey No.220/1, the subject matter of the suit. The vague assertions
regarding ancestral possession were insufficient to rebut the clear
findings of the demarcation report. Consequently, the
respondents/plaintiffs succeeded in proving, on a preponderance of
probability, that the appellants/defendants had encroached upon their
property. Furthermore, the applications filed by both parties under Order
41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for admission of additional
documents were rightly considered unnecessary for adjudication, and the
learned First Appellate Court accordingly dismissed I.A. Nos.2/24, 3/24,
4/24, and 5/24. In light of the foregoing discussion, the learned First
Appellate Court concludes that the disputed land is rightfully owned and
possessed by the respondents/plaintiffs and the appellants/defendants'
encroachment is illegal.
15. Suffice is to add that appellants/defendant has virtually failed to
challenge the report of Revenue Inspector (Ex.C/4) neither before the
Trial Court nor before the learned First Appellate Court, resultantly since
the report of Revenue Inspector (Ex.C/4) forms the basis of identification
of boundaries between the parties, thus, in absence of any challenge by
the appellants/defendants the said report being attained finality, this Court
therefore, cannot doubt or enter into finding recorded in the said report
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30517
and accordingly findings of the Trial Court and the learned First
Appellate Court cannot be interfered.
16. However, it is well settled by a consistent line of decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that interference with concurrent findings of fact
is permissible only when such findings are perverse or manifestly
contrary to the material on record. The Court may refer to 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 and Another [(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], wherein it has been repeatedly held that mere
disagreement with the findings of fact cannot justify interference, unless
such findings are palpably perverse or unsupported by any evidence. In
the present case, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts
below have been arrived at after a careful and meticulous appreciation of
the evidence on record. The findings are neither perverse nor devoid of
evidentiary support. Therefore, there exists no legal justification for this
Court to interfere with the same under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
17. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and upon due
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30517
consideration of material available on record and considering the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court does not find any illegality
in the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court,
dismissing the appeal of the appellants/defendants.
18. Resultantly in absence of any substantial question of law, this
Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
19. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed off
accordingly.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Aiyer*
PS
