Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind Singh(Dead) Kamlakar vs Lalbahadur Singh & Ors. on 19 September, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47031
1 SA-1256-2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 19th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1256 of 2000
GOVIND SINGH(DEAD) THR. LRs. KAMLAKAR
Versus
LALBAHADUR SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRs. & ORS.
Appearance:
Shri Amit Shukla - Advocate for the appellants.
ORDER
This second appeal is preferred by the original appellant/plaintiff (now
dead, thr. LRs.) challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2000
passed by Additional District Judge, Rewa in regular civil appeal No.8-
A/1999 affirming/modifying the judgment and decree dated 09.09.1992
passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Teonthar, District Rewa in civil suit No.32-
A/1984, whereby both the Courts below have dismissed the
appellant/plaintiff's suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction,
recovery of possession and for declaring the sale deeds not binding on the
plaintiff.
2 . Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit land
belonged to Tejbhan Singh, who died in the year about 1955-56, leaving
behind him his wife and two sons Bhola Singh and Govind Singh. He
submits that wife of Tejbhan Singh had died in the year about 1965-66 and
even in presence of mother and brother - Govind Singh (plaintiff), Bhola
Singh had sold the suit land to the defendants 1 to 4 vide registered sale deed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47031
2 SA-1256-2000
dated 08.10.1960, 06.12.1961 and 07.06.1962, in the minority of the
plaintiff, without there being any legal necessity. He submits that although
Trial Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, but rightly decided the
issue no.2 framed regarding legal necessity available in the family to sell the
suit land by Bhola Singh but while affirming the judgment and decree, First
Appellate Court has committed an illegality in allowing the cross-objection
filed in respect of issue no.2 and has committed an illegality in reversing the
findings recorded by Trial Court. He submits that the sale deed executed by
Bhola Singh in favour of the defendants 1-4 being void, the suit ought to
have been decreed. With these submissions he prays for admission of the
second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
4. Undisputedly, in the year about 1960-62 when said three sale deeds
were executed by Bhola Singh in favour of defendants 1-4, the plaintiff
Govind Singh was minor of the age of about 10-12 years and instant suit was
filed on 17.04.1984, which is apparently barred by limitation as per Article
60 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
5 . Although while deciding issue no.2, Trial Court has held that the
sale deeds were executed by Bhola Singh without there being any legal
necessity, but First Appellate Court while deciding the cross-objection, has
considered this aspect in detail in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment
and found that the land was sold by Bhola Singh due to legal necessity of the
joint family.
6. After arguing at length and in view of the fact that the suit is clearly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47031
3 SA-1256-2000
barred by limitation, which was filed after a period of about 22-23 years of
execution of the sale deeds, learned counsel for the appellants has not been
able to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by First
Appellate Court regarding legal necessity to sell the suit property. It is also
pertinent to mention here that in the light of findings recorded by First
Appellate Court in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment, it cannot be said
that the sale deeds were void.
7 . In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon due consideration of
the entire material available on record, this Court does not find any illegality
in the impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below.
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 also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
