[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Prasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3834
1 SA-750-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 15 th OF JANUARY, 2026
SECOND APPEAL No. 750 of 2017
RAM PRASAD (D) AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Satyam Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sourabh Singh Sengar - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
This second appeal is preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the
judgment and decree dated 03.03.2017 passed by 12th Additional District Judge,
Bhopal in RCA No.221/2016 affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2016
passed by 21st Civil Judge Class-II, Bhopal in civil suit No.696-A/2014, whereby
both the Courts below have concurrently dismissed the suit filed by the original
plaintiffs (Ramprasad and Ramesh s/o Ramprasad) for declaration of title and
permanent injunction, in respect of land survey No.156/2 and 280/2 area 3
acres.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of second appeal,
Ramprasad has died, therefore, his name has been deleted, whose son Ramesh is
already on record as appellant 2.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that Mishrilal and
plaintiff -Ramprasad were granted patta of the land survey No.156/2 area 7 acres
and survey no.280/2 area 5 acres in the year 1976 and they are in possession of the
land. He submits that since the name of Mishrilal and Ramprasad was not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3834
2 SA-750-2017
recorded in the revenue papers, therefore, previously a civil suit was filed by
Ramprasad through power of attorney Ikhteyar Ali and that civil suit was
dismissed by Trial Court but was decreed by the First Appellate Court vide
judgment and decree dated 19.01.2004 (Ex.P/15), which attained finality upto the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submits that since in the previous suit, the basis of
judgment and decree was a patta, copy of which has been placed on record before
this Court at page no.37 along with an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC,
therefore, the present suit which has been filed in respect of land survey No.156/2
and 280/2 area 3 acres, ought to have been decreed and both the Courts below
without taking into consideration the effect of previous judgment and decree
coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, committed an
illegality in dismissing the suit. With these submissions he prays for admission of
the second appeal and for allowing the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC
(I.A. No.1085/2023).
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents/State supports the judgment
and decree passed by the Courts below and prays for dismissal of second appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of plaint it is clear that instant suit has been filed alleging
the suit property as survey No.156/2 and 280/2 area 3 acres. If copy of patta
placed on record in additional evidence, is taken into consideration, the land
survey No.156/2 is shown having an area 7 acres and survey no.280/2 is shown
having an area 5 acres. As to why the plaintiffs have filed the suit in respect of
both the survey numbers alleging the disputed area 3 acres only is not clear from
the entire plaint. So in my considered opinion, the plaint is defective in the light
of provisions of Order VII Rule 3 of CPC.
7. Perusal of the entire record shows that no document showing title of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:3834
3 SA-750-2017
plaintiff in respect of survey No.156/2 and 280/2 has been placed on record. The
revenue entry which has been placed on record along with the application under
Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC depicts that immediately after grant of alleged patta in
the year 1975-76, the name of Mishrilal and Ramprasad was mutated as
Bhumiswami in remark column, which is otherwise not possible and their names
were never recorded in column no.3 as Bhumiswami and this fact has been in the
knowledge of the plaintiffs.
8. Previous suit in which judgment and decree was passed on 19.01.2004
appears to have been filed prior to or in the year 2003, so it is clear that the cause
of action on the basis of which the instant suit is filed, was available in the
previous suit also.
9. Since no document of ownership has been placed on record by the
plaintiffs and the suit is also defective for want of compliance of Order VII Rule 3
of CPC, therefore, in my considered opinion both the Courts below do not appear
to have committed any illegality in dismissing the suit.
10. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, the instant
second appeal as well as application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are hereby
dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
