Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangal Prasad Patel vs Smt. Laxmi Bai on 22 August, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 22 nd OF AUGUST, 2023
CIVIL REVISION No. 58 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
MANGAL PRASAD PATEL S/O LATE TEKCHAND PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. SENIOR MIG -02, SHREE
PARISAR SANJIVANI NAGAR GARHA, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH GULATEE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. LAXMI BAI W/O LATE MOHANSINGH
THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. GRAM
MURGAWA KATANGI TEH PATAN DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JITENDRA SINGH THAKUR S/O LATE
MOHANSNGH THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
GRAM MURGAWA KATANGI TEH. PATAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. MALTI THAKUR W/O SHRIRAM MILAN
THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, JEEVAN BIMA
MANDAN KARYALAYA KE SAMEEP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SMT. PUTTO BAI W/O LATE RAMSINGH RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 263
SANJEEVANI NAGAR VEER SAVARKAR WARD
GARHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SMT. RANJANA RAJPUT W/O LATE RAJENDRA
SINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HOUSE
NO. 263 SANJEEVANI NAGAR VEER SAVARKAR
WARD GARHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RAHUL RAJPUT S/O LATE RAJENDRA RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 263
SANJEEVANI NAGAR VEER SAVARKAR WARD
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUPRIYA
SHARMA CHOUBEY
Signing time: 8/24/2023
3:48:39 PM
2
GARHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. NIKHIL SINGH S/O LATE RAJENDRA RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 263
SANJEEVANI NAGAR VEER SAVARKAR WARD
GARHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. RANI ALIAS RANU W/O LATE RAJENDRA RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 263
SANJEEVANI NAGAR VEER SAVARKAR WARD
GARHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. PURAN SINGH ALIAS SHANKER SINGH S/O LATE
RAJENDRA RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
HOUSE NO. 263 SANJEEVANI NAGAR VEER
SAVARKAR WARD GARHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. SUMAN BAI W/O LATE SHOBHA SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 263 SANJEEVANI
NAGAR VEER SAVARKAR WARD GARHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. DEEPAK SINGH S/O LATE SHOBHA SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 263 SANJEEVANI
NAGAR VEER SAVARKAR WARD GARHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
12. SONU BAI D/O LATE SHOBHA SINGH RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 263
SANJEEVANI NAGAR VEER SAVARKAR WARD
GARHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. MUNNI BAI W/O DEEPCHAND RAJPUT, AGED
ABOUT 61 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 263 SANJEEVANI
NAGAR VEER SAVARKAR WARD GARHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
14. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTT.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
15. TEHSILDAR NOZAL KOTWALI DIVISION NOZAL
KOTWALI DIVISION JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ABHIJEET BHOMIK - ADVOCATE )
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUPRIYA
SHARMA CHOUBEY
Signing time: 8/24/2023
3:48:39 PM
3
following:
ORDER
This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant 11 challenging the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by 17th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in RCS-A/521/2018 whereby, defendants 1-11's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant 11 submits that there was registered partition executed on 22.10.1969 amongst the family members of the predecessors-in-title of the suit land. Thereafter, Mohan Singh sold half share in the land to Gauri Bai on 23.10.1969 and remaining area was sold on 05.01.1970 to Shobha Singh, Rajendra Singh and Puran Singh sons of Ram Singh. He submits that after sale of the lands vide registered sale deeds dated 23.10.1969 and 05.01.1970, no land remained in the ownership of Mohan Singh and the present plaintiffs are the successors of Mohan Singh, who have filed the suit only on the basis of mutation of their name remained effective up to the year 2018. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiffs cannot challenge the sale deed dated 05.03.2018 executed by defendants 1-10 in favour of the defendant 11 until and unless the plaintiffs challenge the previous sale deeds dated 23.10.1969 and 05.01.1970 as well as the partition deed dated 22.10.1969. He further submits that because of lapse of time, now the plaintiffs cannot challenge the previously executed sale deeds by Mohan Singh or the partition deed executed amongst the family members and the plaintiffs are bound by them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court without taking into consideration the aforesaid factual aspect in the light of legal position settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) and others (2020) 7 SCC Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUPRIYA SHARMA CHOUBEY Signing time: 8/24/2023 3:48:39 PM 4 3 6 6 , Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) By Legal Representatives (2020) 16 SCC 601, Suresh Kumar Dagla Vs. Sarwan and Another (2014) 14 SCC 254 a n d T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another (1977) 4 SCC 467, has passed the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1-3/plaintiffs supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the civil revision with the contention that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and the term "cause of action" is a bundle of facts and there are sufficient pleadings in the plaint. As such both the questions are required to be tried after framing issues and after recording evidence of the parties.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of the plaint, it is clear that in respect of the partition deed and the sale deeds executed by Mohan Singh, there are sufficient pleadings in the plaint, however, no relief has been claimed by the palintiffs in the plaint in respect of the partition deed and the sale deeds executed on 23.10.1969 and 05.01.1970. It is an admitted fact on record that the aforesaid documents have been filed alongwith the plaint by the plaintiffs themselves.
7. From perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the learned Court below while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter in the light of aforesaid legal position settled by the Supreme Court.
8. Resultantly, the impugned order being unsustainable, deserves to be and is hereby set aside with the further direction to learned trial Court to re- consider/re-decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the defendants 1-11 on the basis of plaint averments and the documents, if any, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUPRIYA SHARMA CHOUBEY Signing time: 8/24/2023 3:48:39 PM 5 filed by the plaintiffs.
9. With the aforesaid, this civil revision is allowed and disposed off.
10. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE anu Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUPRIYA SHARMA CHOUBEY Signing time: 8/24/2023 3:48:39 PM