[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravindra vs Veerendra on 15 April, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12079
1 SA-36-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
SECOND APPEAL No. 36 of 2026
RAVINDRA
Versus
VEERENDRA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajendra Jain, Govt. Advocate for respondent No.5/State.
Reserved on : 08/04/2026
Pronounced on : 15/04/2026
JUDGMENT
This second appeal, under section 100 of CPC, has been filed against
the judgment and decree dated 31/10/2025 passed by I District Judge, Guna
in RCA No. 19/2021, by which the judgment and decree dated 16/3/2021
passed by II Civil Judge Class II, Guna in RCS No.70A/2017 has been
reversed.
2. Appellant is the defendant who has lost his case from the appellate
Court.
3. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that
respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and possession
in respect of a residential plot bearing number 54 area 0.011 hectare i.e. 30 x
40 = 1200 square feet situated in Gulabganj, Ward No. 35, Unit No. 35/06
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12079
2 SA-36-2026
forming part of Khasra No. 766/4 min-26. Defendant No.6 was the State of
M.P., who was proceeded ex parte by order dated 20/4/2017. It was pleaded
by plaintiff that the plot in dispute was purchased by him by sale deed dated
3/3/2015 from defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and, accordingly he got his name
mutated in the revenue records. On its eastern side - the house of Pappu
Yadav, on western side - 20 feet wide passage, on southern side - the house
of Chauhan Singh Ahirwar and on northern side - the house of Ghuman
Ahirwar are situated. After purchasing the property, plaintiff installed his
signboard. As he is the permanent resident of village Chandol, therefore, in
the month of March, 2015, he went to his field for cutting the crops and
taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff, defendant No.1 encroached
upon the plot belonging to the plaintiff by raising a boundary wall of bricks.
When plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to remove his encroachment, then
on 26/4/2015, defendant No.1 abused the plaintiff filthily and also assaulted
him. The incident was reported to police station Cantt and accordingly FIR in
Crime No. 314/14 was registered against defendant No.1 for offence under
sections 294, 353, 506 of IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In spite of that,
defendant did not remove his possession. Accordingly, plaintiff moved an
application under section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before the
Revenue Court for removal of encroachment. A report was called by
Tahsildar from Patwari according to which also defendant No.1 had
encroached upon the plot of plaintiff. However, the application filed under
section 250 of M.P. Land Revenue Code was rejected by Tahsildar by order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12079
3 SA-36-2026
dated 24/8/2016 on the ground that the provision of section 250 of M.P.
Land Revenue Code is applicable to agricultural lands and not to residential
lands. Accordingly, plaintiff did not assail the order passed by the Tahsildar.
Thereafter, plaintiff once again requested defendant No.1 to remove his
encroachment, but every time he picked up a quarrel with the plaintiff and,
accordingly a suit was filed for possession as well as for permanent
injunction.
4. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement and claimed that
plaintiff had got a forged sale deed executed in respect of plot No. 54. In
fact, the house of Ghuman Ahirwar is situated on plot No. 54 and in that
house, plaintiff Virendra is residing. On the eastern side of the house of
Ghuman Ahirwar, plot No. 45 of Devendra Rajawat is situated over which a
two-storey building is standing, on the southern side of house of Devendra
Rajawat, plot No. 44 is situated which was purchased by father of defendant
No.1 and on the western side of plot No. 44, plot No. 55 belonging to
defendant No. 1 is situated which is being used for tying cattles as well as
storing fodder. The boundary wall is standing since 1991. Defendant No.1
had purchased the aforesaid plot from Beniram Prajapati by registered sale
deed dated 25/7/1991 and since then he is in possession of the same. In the
meanwhile, if plaintiff has got his name mutated illegally in respect of plot
No. 54, then that would not confer any title on the plaintiff. In the plaint,
plaintiff has claimed that on the eastern side of this plot, the house of Pappu
Yadav is situated, whereas it was claimed that there is no house of Pappu
Yadav. The house of Babulal Yadav, father of the defendant No.1 over plot
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12079
4 SA-36-2026
No.44 is situated towards the eastern side of plot number 55, in which
defendant No.1 is residing with his father. After the death of his father,
defendant No.1 is residing along with his mother and his brothers in the plot
No. 44 and plot No.55 is vacant which is being used for tying cattles and fruit
bearing trees are standing. All other plaint averments were denied. Thus it
was the case of defendant No.1 that the land which has been made subject
matter of suit is plot No. 55 which was purchased by him.
5. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 also filed their written statement and
admitted the crucial plaint averments except that some of the plaint
averments were denied for want of knowledge.
6. The trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence,
dismissed the suit.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court, plaintiff/respondent No.1 preferred an appeal which has been decreed
by the appellate court.
8. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court,
it is submitted by counsel for appellant/defendant No.1 that the Court below
failed to see that defendant No.1 had purchased plot No. 55 and by wrongly
mentioning it as plot No. 54, plaintiff had got a forged sale deed executed.
The mutation of name of plaintiff would not confer any right or title on the
plaintiff. It is further submitted that in the sale deed of plaintiff, plot number
is not mentioned, and proposed the following substantial questions of law:-
"1- Whether the judgment and decree passed by lower appellate
court is perverse and contrary to record, ignoring the basic
evidence which deserves to be quashed.
2- Whether in absence of any counter claim for cancellation of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12079
5 SA-36-2026
registered sale deed of the appellant defendant the lower appellate
court has committed error in reversing the finding of trial court.
3- Whether the appellate court has committed error in reversing
the well reasoned finding of the trial court in dismissing the suit.
4-Whether the lower appellate court has committed error in
ignoring the admission of the plaintiff in respect of petitioner title
even than reversing the finding of trial court.
5- Whether the lower appellate court has committed error in
ignoring the plaintiff claim when the plaintiff has admit this fact
after purchasing the plot he has made the demarcation, but
demarcation report is not been filed therefore by not drawing the
adverse inference against the plaintiff.
6- Whether the lower appellate court has committed error in
placing reliance on the report of patwari filed in case of section
248 of MPLRC without examining him in civil suit or in absence
of cross examination of the patwari.
7- Whether the lower appellate court has committed error in
deciding the suit in favour of the plaintiff without demarcating the
land in question as encroachment cannot be decided without
demarcation."
9. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant.
10. It is well established principle of law that when there is a dispute
with regard to identity of plot, then the boundaries mentioned in the sale
deed can be treated as decisive guidelines. In the sale deed dated 3/3/2015
(Ex.P/5) executed in favor of plaintiff, the boundaries of plot which was
purchased by plaintiff are as as under:-
On the eastern side - house of Pappu Yadav,
on western side - a 20 feet wide road,
on northern side - house of Ghuman Ahirwar, and,
on southern side - house of Chauhan Singh Ahirwar;
whereas in the sale deed (Ex. D/1) by which defendant No.1 had
purchased plot No. 55, the boundaries have been mentioned as under:-
On eastern side - block No. 44,
on western side - proposed 20 feet wide road,
on northern side - block No. 54, and,
on southern side - block No. 56.
It is the case of defendant No.1 that his father had purchased plot No.
44 and he along with his family members are residing in the house situated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12079
6 SA-36-2026
on plot No. 44, whereas plot No. 55 which was purchased by him is lying
vacant and is being used for tying cattle as well as storing fodder, apart from
the fact that fruit bearing trees have been planted on the same. It is the case
of plaintiff that he had purchased plot No. 54, whereas it is the case of the
defendant No.1 that the land in dispute is plot No.55 and he is the owner of
the same. Thus, nobody is claiming title over the property purchased by the
other.
11. It is well established principle of law that when there is a boundary
dispute, then the same can be resolved by carrying out spot inspection.
Plaintiff has relied upon a spot inspection report prepared by Patwari on
29/2/2016 on an application instituted by plaintiff under section 250 of the
M.P. Land Revenue Code. It is mentioned in the spot inspection report
(Ex.P/4) that plot No. 54 was got identified on the basis of the boundaries
mentioned in the sale deed. It was found that on the spot, the house of
Ravindra Singh son of Babulal Yadav/defendant No.1 is situated towards the
eastern side of plot No. 54, on the western side - there is a public road, on
northern side - the house of Ghuman Singh Ahirwar is situated, and on the
southern side - the house of Chauhan Singh Ahirwar is situated. It was
further pointed out that on the disputed plot No. 54, Ravindra Singh son of
Babulal Yadav/defendant No.1 has encroached upon by constructing
boundary wall. Although plaintiff has not examined the Patwari who had
prepared the spot inspection report, but the spot inspection report was
prepared in a proceeding initiated by plaintiff under section 250 of M.P.
Land Revenue Code. It is not the case of defendant No.1 that he was not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12079
7 SA-36-2026
party to said proceedings which were initiated under section 250 of the M.P.
Land Revenue Code. Therefore, it is clear that there is a spot inspection
report in favor of plaintiff and in rebuttal of the same, defendant No.1 did
not file any application for carrying out fresh demarcation by appointing a
local Commissioner. In his evidence, Ravindra Yadav (DW1) has merely
stated that plot No. 44 of his father is situated adjacent to his plot. However,
no document was produced to show the location of plot No. 44. The sale
deed of plot No, 44, by which father of defendant No.1 had purchased the
same, has not been produced. He further claimed in paragraph 8 that plot
No.55 was purchased by his father in his name. He further claimed that he
has not seen the sale deed of plot of Ghuman but he claimed that the plot of
Ghuman i.e. plot No. 54 is adjoining to plot No. 55. He denied that there is
no road in front of the plot No. 44. He denied that the approach road to plot
number 44 and 55 is the same. He further claimed that both the plots have
different approach roads. He admitted that after purchasing plot No. 55, he
never got the demarcation done. He further admitted that he has not filed any
document to show that he had ever got his plot demarcated at the time of
purchase. He denied for want of knowledge as to whether the Patwari had
submitted the spot inspection report or not. He admitted that he was sent to
jail but claimed that it was on a false report. He admitted that at the time of
purchasing the property, he had not seen the colonization map. He further
admitted that he has not taken any building permission for raising
construction. However, he denied that he has raised construction on plot No.
44 without any map/drawing. He denied that he has encroached upon the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12079
8 SA-36-2026
land of the plaintiff but claimed that the plaintiff has no land at all.
Furthermore, defendant No.1, himself had given a suggestion to Rakesh
Jatav (PW3) that defendant No.1 is residing in Plot No.55 and Plot No.54 is
lying vacant, which was admitted by this witness. The defendant No.1
himself admitted that he is residing in Plot No.55 and not 44 as claimed by
him in his written statement.
12. Thus, defendant No.1 has specifically admitted that at the time of
purchasing plot No. 55, he had not verified any document and he has not
taken any building permission from the competent Authority to construct the
house. The appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence as well as the
demarcation report submitted by Patwari in the proceeding under section 250
of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, has given a finding of fact that the
defendant No.1 has encroached upon the plot owned by plaintiff. Defendant
No.1 in his evidence has not claimed that the report submitted by Patwari
(Ex.P/4) is incorrect. He simply denied the existence of that report for want
of knowledge.
13. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
when the there is a boundary dispute, then the same can be resolved by by
demarcation and plaintiff has successfully proved on the basis of
demarcation report, as well as, on the basis of evidence led by the parties that
defendant No.1 has encroached upon plot No. 54.
14. As no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal,
accordingly, no case is made out to warrant interference.
15. The judgment and the decree dated 31/10/2025 passed by I
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12079
9 SA-36-2026
District Judge, Guna in RCA No. 19/2021 is hereby affirmed.
16. Appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
(and)
