Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwan Singh vs Kamta Bai on 27 October, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53273
1 SA-681-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 27th OF OCTOBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 681 of 2017
BHAGWAN SINGH
Versus
KAMTA BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Zargar - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate with Shri Devansh Tiwari - Advocate for
respondents 1 - 5.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the original
plaintiff/appellant Bhagwan Singh (dead) through LRs, challenging the
judgment and decree dated 01.05.2017 passed by District Judge, Sehore in
Regular Civil Appeal Nos.17-A/2016 and 18-A/2016, affirming/modifying
the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2014 passed by Second Additional
Civil Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge Class-1, Sehore in Civil Suit
No.79-A/2013, whereby the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for
declaration of title and finding him to be in possession, granted decree of
permanent injunction, however upon filing civil appeal by both the parties,
first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court in respect of title and reversed the judgment and decree of permanent
injunction.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that although the suit
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53273
2 SA-681-2017
property/agricultural land belonged to father Daulatram, but he in his life
time partitioned the same and by way of mutation Panji No.6 dated
05.07.2010 gave one share to the original plaintiff - Bhagwan Singh and kept
remaining share with him and since thereafter the plaintiff remained in
possession of his share. He submits that plaintiff is exclusive owner and in
possession of land Survey No.196/1 area 2.428 hectares, and upon due
consideration of the entire material oral and documentary evidence as well as
the admissions made by defendants, the trial Court rightly found the plaintiff
to be in possession and rightly granted the decree of permanent injunction
but first appellate Court has committed an illegality in reversing the decree of
permanent injunction. With these submissions, he prays for admission of the
second appeal.
3. Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Devansh Tiwari,
learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 - 5 supports the impugned
judgment and decree and prays for dismissal of the second appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Undisputedly, Daulatram was owner/Bhumiswami and in possession of
the lands Survey Nos.196, 197 and 198 total area 3.096 hectares, out of
which the plaintiff claims himself to be exclusive owner/Bhumiswami of
Survey No.196/1 area 2.428 hectares on the basis of partition took place in
the life time of his father by way of mutation Panji No.6 dated 05.07.2010,
which has not been placed on record by the plaintiff. In view of the fact that
father Daulatram was Bhumiswami of the lands and there is no documentary
evidence regarding transfer of any share to the plaintiff by him, both the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53273
3 SA-681-2017
Courts have concurrently held that plaintiff and defendants 1 - 5 are entitled
for equal share in the agricultural lands left by Daulatram, however, on the
basis of oral evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is in exclusive
possession of Survey No.196 area 2.428 hectares and granted decree of
permanent injunction. Upon filing civil appeal by both the parties, first
appellate Court has dismissed the civil appeal filed by the plaintiff in respect
of exclusive ownership over Survey No.196/1 area 2.428 hectares and at the
same time allowed the civil appeal filed by the defendants 1 - 5 and finding
the plaintiff and defendants 1 - 6 to be co-owners of the suit property
reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in respect of relief
of permanent injunction on the premise that every co-owner is presumed to
be in possession of every inch of the suit property.
6. Even after arguing at length, learned counsel for the appellant has not
been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the concurrent judgment
and decree passed by the Courts below and upon due consideration of the
entire material available on record this Court also does not find any illegality.
7. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
psm
