Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parimal Singh Sikarwar vs Satish Singh Sikarwar on 20 December, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
Bench: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 20 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 4404 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. PARIMAL SINGH SIKARWAR S/O LT VISHAL
SINGH SIKARWAR, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
BHAROSI KI DHARAMSHALA ROAD DUTTAPURA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ANAND SINGH SIKARWAR S/O SHRI PARIMAL
SINGH SIKARWAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
BHAROSI KI DHARAMSHALA ROAD, DUTTAPURA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI ABHISEHK SINGH BHADAURIA-ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONERS)
AND
1. SATISH SINGH SIKARWAR S/O PARIMAL SINGH
SIKARWAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BHAROSI KI
DHARAMSHALA ROAD DUTTAPURA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. VINOD SINGH SIKARWAR S/O SHRI BRAJENDRA
SINGH SIKARWAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, VILL.
BHAINSROLI, TEH. MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ASHISH SAXENA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R-
1].
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
2
ORDER
T h e petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the 4th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Morena in Civil Suit No.11-A/2015.
In brief, facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit against the petitioners/defendants for declaration and permanent injunction regarding Building No.40 situated in Ward No.13 which shall be called as disputed property in the present case. Aforesaid disputed property was purchased by the respondent and father of the petitioners by registered sale deed dated 7.8.1966 through Tatiyaram. Initially, the sole owner of the disputed property was Vishal Singh. After the death of Vishal Singh, petitioners and respondent became the owner of the disputed property. In the aforesaid property an area 15x45 sq. ft. is in possession and ownership of the respondent/plaintiff and 15x45 sq. ft is in the possession and ownership of petitioner/defendant No.1. When respondent tried to built wall, the petitioner objected, due to this, he has filed a civil suit. During evidence respondent produce relinquish deed which was unregistered. The petitioner objected but his objection was rejected. Against that rejection he filed a Misc. Petition No.3417/2018 in which coordinate bench on 3.9.2019 by setting aside the order of the trial Court remanded back the case to proceed in accordance with law, after deciding that whether the document can be impounded or not and what would be the effect of its non-registration. Learned trial Court afterwards impounded the aforesaid relinquish deed and sent before Collector of Stamps with the direction that after receiving stamp duty sent it back to them. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, defendants/petitioners preferred this petition on the ground that without ascertaining the purpose of aforesaid documents whether it 3 is relevant or not, learned trial Court impounded the documents.
Case of the respondent is that aforesaid documents is said to be executed on 18.06.2012. The disputed property was purchased on 8.7.1966. Learned trial Court after impounding the documents sent the documents before Collector of Stamps. The respondents in para 8 of the plaint has specifically pleaded that aforesaid relinquish deed was executed by defendant No.1 but he was never in possession of the aforesaid disputed land. In these situation, aforesaid document is irrelevant. Learned trial Court has not committed any error in impounding the aforesaid documents.
Accordingly, present Misc. Petition sans merits is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE Van VANDANA VERMA 2022.12.21 09:49:38 -08'00'