Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Vimla Bai D/O Kamarlal W/O Gopal ... vs Ramsnehi on 28 February, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 5151 of 2025
SMT. VIMLA BAI D/O KAMARLAL W/O GOPAL KUSHWAH
THR. POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAHUL KUSHWAH
AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMSNEHI AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Vinod Kumar Dhakad,- Advocate for the respondent [CAVEAT].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 19/02/2025
Delivered on : 28/02/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per : Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke :
ORDER
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by Tehsildar in partition case No.72/2019-20/A-27, order dated 23.03.2020 passed by SDO, Shivpuri in Appeal No.148/2019-20 and order dated 20.01.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner in Second Appeal No.417/2020-21, whereby initially Tehsildar had allowed an application under Section 178 of MPLRC for partition preferred at the instance of the present respondents no.1 to 4 and the said orders were affirmed by the SDO and the Additional Commissioner and the appeals preferred by the present petitioners were dismissed.
22. Short facts leading to the controversy are that the property in question was originally held by one Kamar Lal who was having four sons and five daughters.
3. Initially present petitioner no.2 along with three other sisters Sukhiya, Puniya, Kalawati preferred one application under Section 178 for partition which was allowed vide order dated 05.05.2017 and as per the appended Fard Batawara (exhibit-1) and the Map (exhibit-
2) the partition was accepted. The said partition was challenged by present respondents no.5 to 8 in appeal no.111/2016-17 before the SDO which was allowed vide order dated 04.12.2017 and the order of partition dated 05.05.2017 was set aside, against which present petitioners and other sisters Sukhiya, Puniya and Kalawati preferred a Second Appeal No.525/2017-18 which was withdrawn on behalf of the appellants therein on the basis of compromise (appended as Annexure B to I.A. No.3495/2023 filed by the petitioners on 19.02.2023). In the said compromise it was agreed that with regard to land bearing survey nos.88 and 81/221 the parties are reserving rights to continue with the partition proceedings and for the rest survey numbers, the compromise shall exist.
4. Prior to withdrawal of the seconal appeal, Sukhiya, Puniya and Kalawati sold their unpartitioned share in the property to respondents no.1 to 4 vide sale-deed dated 24.07.2019. In the sale-deed it was mentioned that the three were having 1/3rd share of 0.475 hectares in survey no. 88/1/10 ad-measuring 0.032 hectares, survey no.88/2 ad- measuring 0.591 hectares, survey no.88/3 ad-measuring 0.761 hectares, survey no.221/81/2 ad-measuring 0.042 hectares, but mentioned therein that the said land is situated on bypass road ad- measuring 120 feet in width and rest in length and the entire land is 3 irrigated and is not having well, trees, crops or any house and is ancestral land and there is no bar of Section 165 of MPLRC and Ceiling Act over the said land. It was also mentioned therein that there was even no dispute in any Court or office with regard to said land nor there is any stay order over it. It was also mentioned that in Tehsildar's Office, in the office of SDO, Collector, Civil Court, High Court and Supreme Court no matter is pending regarding the said land and if it is found that there is some dispute, then it would be the sole responsibility of the seller.
5. After getting the sale-deed executed in their favor present respondent no.1 to 4 moved an application under Section 178 of MPLRC for partition which was registered as case No.72/2019-20/A- 27, as admittedly they had purchased undivided share in the property on 16.09.2019. On 30.09.2019 notices were issued to the present petitioners and other respondents and the matter was posted for hearing on 07.10.2019. In the proceedings dated 07.10.2019 there is a mention that statements of respondents Ramdayal and Ramswaroop were recorded and for rest again notices were directed to be issued which implied that the other respondents before Tehsildar were not served and matter was listed for hearing on 22.10.2019. As the notice issued to the petitioner no.2 could not be served, therefore, as per the directions of Tehsildar it was affixed, but there is nothing on record to show that present petitioner no.1 was served or not. Vide proceedings dated 22.10.2019 learned Tehsildar while observing that the other respondents have been served through publication and since none has appeared, therefore, they are being proceeded ex-parte and further the statements of the applicants were recorded and later on vide order dated 25.10.2019 the application was allowed.
46. Before preferring the said appeal against the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by Tehsildar in the partition proceedings, the present petitioners preferred a Civil Suit No.17A/2022 on 23.01.2020 for declaring the sale-deed executed in favor of the present respondents no.1 to 4 to be null and void and for permanent injunction. In the said suit it was averred that though there was no partition effected between the parties, even then the defendants are selling the land in dispute by converting them into plots and, thus, a prayer was made therein that the sale-deed since is for an undivided/unidentified shares of the sellers be declared null and void and also declare the revenue proceedings conducted in absence of the present petitioners to be null and void and further the defendants may be restrained from selling the land prior to getting it duly partitioned and getting it demarcated.
7. After filing of the suit the first appeal no.148/2019-20 so preferred before SDO Got dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2020 against which second appeal no.417/2020-21 was preferred before the Additional Commissioner which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2022. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the present petition has been filed.
ARGUMENTS.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued before this Court that admittedly the notices issued by Tehsildar during the proceedings under Section 178 of MPLRC were not served upon the petitioners as would be evident from the proceedings dated 07.10.2019 and though on the said date directions were issued for service of notice upon the unserved respondents by way of publication, no service was effected by any mode upon the petitioner. Thus, there was total violation of 5 principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners and in their absence the Fard Batwara report was accepted, which was also prepared in absence of the petitioners and the order of partition was passed which is per se illegal.
9. It was further argued that though in the proceedings dated 22.10.2019 it has been mentioned that copy of the notice published in the newspaper is appended along with the record, but there is no such newspaper available in the record and only one press note dated 07.10.2019 is appended which mentions of making publication in any daily newspaper published at the State level and objections were called latest by 22.10.2019, but from perusal of the said press note it would be clear that there was no mention of any particular newspaper in which the said publication was to be effected, thus, when there is no directions to any newspaper to publish the said press note nor there is any newspaper appended along with the record, mentioning of the fact in the order-sheet dated 22.10.2019 about service of notice on petitioner through publication is wholly perverse. It was also argued that the factum of publication of notice prior to 22.10.2019 is also not established from the record nor any proof in that regard had been placed on record by the other side.
10. While referring to the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2024 though he candidly admits that a prayer was made for setting aside of the revenue proceedings of partition conducted behind the back of the petitioners, but submitted that while considering the said prayer the Trial Court has relied upon a mis-representation made by defendant no.9 therein i.e. Ramsnehi s/o Premnarayan Chaturvedi/respondent no.1 herein that against the order dated 05.05.2017 by which on earlier occassion the land was partitioned between the parties and 6 thereupon the sale-deeds were executed in his favor was not challenged further and had attained finality, when admittedly it was set aside vide order dated 04.12.2017 and on its basis no right had accrued to any party and as the judgment was obtained by making mis-representation would amount to playing fraud upon the Court and no benefit can be derived from it when such an order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
11. It was further argued that the defendants in the suit had also mis-represented before the learned Trial Court that against the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by Tehsildar in the second round of litigation under Section 178 of MPLRC for partition no appeal was preferred by the present petitioners though the fact of non-filing of an appeal was admitted by present petitioner no.2 in her cross-examination, but in actuallity the defendants therein just to take advantage of the order of partition passed by Tehsildar dated 25.10.2019 had exhibited it as Exhibit D-1 without bringing to the knowledge of the Trial Court that the said order was challenged by the present petitioners in appeal, thus, this also amounts to the fraud played upon the Trial Court by the defendants which vitiates the entire judgment, thus, would not be binding upon this Court to decide the present controversy. While referring to para 23 of the said judgment, it was argued that only on the basis of certain admissions made by one of the petitioners in her cross-examination, the learned Trial Court has held that the orders dated 05.05.2017 and 25.10.2019 had attained finality, therefore, there is no question of interfering with those orders was wholly a mis- conceived finding that too when there was no prayer of any party to declare the partition proceedings to be good. Since the order dated 05.05.2017 was already set aside in appeal no.111/2016-17 dated 04.12.2017 and the order dated 25.10.2019 was challenged in appeal 7 by the plaintiffs, thus, had not attained finality and since the said finding was arrived at by the learned Trial Court on a mis- representation made by present respondent no.1 and other defendants in the suit, the finding of the learned Trial Court vitiates and would not have any binding effect.
12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the matter of Meghmala & Ors vs G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors reported in 2010(8) SCC 383. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment and arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the present petition deserves to be allowed and while setting aside the impugned orders, the matter is required to be relegated back to Tehsildar for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity to all the parties interested.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that already the issue with regard to the partition has been settled by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No.17A/2020 vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.2024 and as the judgment of Civil Court is binding upon revenue authorities, proceedings with regard to similar issue could not be agitated any more and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on this very ground.
14. While referring to issue no.1 framed by the learned Trial Court, it was submitted that the said issue involved land bearing survey no.81/221 as well as survey no.88 and after scrutiny of the evidence learned Trial Court has found that the partition was duly effected between the parties and once a finding has been arrived at by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction with regard to the partition between the parties, no scope is left with the revenue authorities to enter into the said arena and hold contrary.
815. So far as the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the respondent submitted that notices were duly served upon the petitioners by way of publication and even by ordinary mode on petitioner no.2 for the hearing dated 22.10.2019, but even after service of notice, the petitioners chose not to appear, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte and after recording statements of applicants and other respondents, the order of partition was passed which cannot be faulted with.
16. To bolster his submissions reliance was placed in the matter of Smt. Shimla Yadav vs. State of M.P and Ors passed in W.P. No.24685/2021 dated 15.11.2021 and had submitted that since for the same relief party cannot file two parallel proceedings, the dismissal of the suit preferred by the petitioners would automatically entail dismissal of the present petition since it was filed seeking the same relief.
17. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION.
18. In the present case admittedly, the petitioner before filing of an appeal against the order passed by Tehsildar of partition dated 25.10.2019 had preferred a Civil Suit. The prayer made in the suit was for declaration of the sale-deed dated 24.07.2019 executed in favor of present respondent no.1 to 4 to be declared null and void and also to declare the proceedings before the revenue authorities to be void since they were passed dehors the principles of natural justice without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and apart from that permanent injunction was also sought.
19. After filing of the suit the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order of Tehsildar dated 25.10.2019 as such two parallel 9 proceedings were initiated by the petitioners. Though the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2020 by the SDO on merits and was challenged in second appeal before Additional Commissioner which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.01.2022 and, thereafter, the present petition was filed on 11.04.2022, but either of the parties had not brought to the knowledge of the learned Trial Court the pendency of the present petition rather defendant no.9 Ramsnehi/present respondent no.1 had mis-represented the fact of preferring of an appeal against the order dated 25.10.2019 though he was party to the proceedings and was represented through counsel, thus, it appears to this Court that just to gain advantage out of the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by Tehsildar, this fact was eloped by him.
20. Another glaring fact is reflected from para 8 of the said judgment wherein it has been mentioned that the present respondent no.1 who was defendant no.9 in the suit had averred in his written statement that vide order dated 05.05.2017, the land has finally been partitioned between the parties and against which there is no pending proceedings before any Court when admittedly, the said order was set aside in appeal no.111/2016-17 passed by SDO, Shivpuri preferred at the instance of present respondent no.5 to 8. Thus, when the proceedings on which the respondent no.1 was relying in the suit was already set aside, then not bringing it to the knowledge of the learned Trial Court amounts to mis-representation and as it is a settled preposition of law that where a party gets an order by making mis- representation or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and, thus, would not be binding.
1021. It is also settled preposition of law that a writ court while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and sub-letties invented to evade law." In the aforesaid regard relevant extract of judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Meghmala & Ors (supra) can be quoted:-
"28. From the above, it is evident that even in judicial proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away. In such an eventuality the questions of non- executing of the statutory remedies or statutory bars like doctrine of res judicata are not attracted. Suppression of any material fact/document amounts to a fraud on the court. Every court has an inherent power to recall its own order obtained by fraud as the order so obtained is non est.
29. The instant case required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.
The case of the respondents has been that transfer by the vendor in favour of the appellant was not genuine. Material information had been suppressed from the Special Court. More so, there was no proper identification of the suit land in the earlier litigation. The reports submitted in this 11 regard were not correct.
30. Respondents have never been able to show as under what circumstances they are interested in the suit land because before the Special Court in the first round they failed to show any document that land had ever been transferred by the tenure holders/owners in favour of the Society or the Society had made any allotment in their favour or they were member of the said Society or they obtained any sanction from statutory authority to raise the construction.
Shri M.V. Durga Prasad, Ld. Counsel appearing for the said respondents was repeatedly asked by us to show any document on record linking the said respondents with the suit land. Though, he argued for a long time, raised large number of issues but could not point out a single document which may reflect that respondents could have any claim on the suit land. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the application at their behest was not maintainable.
31. The issue of mis-representation/fraud, suppression of material fact and identification of land had been in issue in earlier review petitions before the Special Court and in the Writ Petitions before the High Court. In this regard, the Special Court in execution proceedings was fully satisfied regarding the identity of land on the basis of 12 revenue record and came to the conclusion that there was no mis-representation or fraud on the part of the appellant/applicant. The order of the Special Court dated 11th July, 2006 made it clear that all these issues had been agitated in earlier proceedings. The Special Court has held as under:
"The applicants herein as contended in this L.G.C. have filed IA No.869/2002 for stay of proceedings and IA No. 861/2002 for summoning the record in File No.B/9815/97 from the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer on the ground of alleged fraud played by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Mandal Surveyor. Those petitions were heard at length and were dismissed holding that the alleged fraud as contended by the applicants herein was not made out and the property which is the subject matter of L.G.C. No.76/96 should be delivered to the respondents herein by evicting the applicants. As mentioned already, in execution of the said order, applicants herein were evicted and possession was delivered to the respondents.
Admittedly, the common order passed in IA Nos. 518/2002, 861/2002 and 869/2002, by this Court was questioned by the applicants herein by filing Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the same was also dismissed holding that the applicants herein are trying to protract the litigation and to delay the delivery of possession of 13 the property in question to the respondents."(emphasis added)
32. In another case decided by the Special Court vide order dated 6th July, 2006 the Court had taken note of the pleadings in respect of identification of land and mis-
representation/fraud/collusion in the earlier proceedings and the observations made by the Writ Court in its order dated 17th December, 2002 that the said respondents were interested in protracting the litigation and obstructing the implementation of the order of the Special Court dated 4.11.1997. The said order had been passed in Application No. 51 of 2002 where one of the main grounds had been that the appellant/applicant had played fraud in obtaining the said order as is taken note of in paragraph 13 of the said order by the Special Court. The Special Court also took note of earlier direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to identify the land and possession of the same was delivered to the decree holder. The said order was under challenge before the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 22953/2002 and 23105/2002 wherein pleading of the alleged fraud and mis- identification of suit land were taken. The Special Court came to the conclusion that there was no suppression of any fact by the revenue authorities or the court was misled at the time of obtaining 14 such orders.
33. There is a registered sale deed dated 21.5.1980 in favour of the appellant/applicant. Nobody has ever filed any application before the competent court to declare said sale deed as null and void. Respondents have no right or interest in the suit property. The Society claimed to have an agreement to sell in its favour which did not confer any title in favour of the Society. A finding of fact had been recorded in earlier proceedings that the appellant/applicant was in actual physical possession of the land and he was illegally/forcibly dispossessed by the respondents.
Forcible dispossession:-
34. Even a trespasser cannot be evicted forcibly. Thus, a person in illegal occupation of the land has to be evicted following the procedure prescribed under the law. (Vide Midnapur Zamindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Narayan Roy AIR 1924 PC 124; Lallu Yeshwant Singh Vs. Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 620; Ram Ratan Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1977 SC 619; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1986 SC 872; and Krishna Ram Mahale Vs. Mrs. Shobha Vankat Rao AIR 1989 SC 2097) .
35. In Nagar Palika, Jind Vs. Jagat Singh AIR 1995 SC 1377, this Court observed that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 is based on the 15 principle that even a trespasser is entitled to protect his possession except against the true owner and purports to protect a person in possession from being dispossessed except in due process of law.
36. Even the State authorities cannot dispossess a person by an executive order. The authorities cannot become the law unto themselves. It would be in violation of the rule of law. Government can resume possession only in a manner known to or recognised by law and not otherwise. (Vide Bishan Das Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1961 SC 1570; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. (supra); State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 997; and State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Vishnunarayan & Associates (P) Ltd. & Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 134).
22. Thus, this Court finds that the mischief played by present respondent no.1 in the Civil Suit wherein he was defendant no.9 which had resulted in dismissal of the suit preferred by the present petitioners is outcome of mis-representation, suppression of facts and playing fraud and it is true that fraud vitiates everything.
23. The Apex Court in the matter of Lilly Kutty vs Scrutiny Committee, S.C. And S.T reported in 2005(8) SCC 283 while dealing with the concept that fraud vitiates everything had considered the case of Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi And Ors reported in 2003(8) SCC 319, wherein it is held that "Fraud as is well-known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together.
16Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter." It was further held that "A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. "
24. It is further held that "An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous." Relevant para 24 and 25 of the judgment passed in Ramchandra Singh (supra) are quoted herein below:
"24.An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous.
25. In Arlidge & Parry on Fraud, it is stated at page 21: "Indeed, the word sometime appears to be virtually synonymous wit "deception", as in the offence (now repealed) of obtaining credit by fraud. It is true that in this context "fraud"
included certain kind of conduct which did not amount to false pretences, since the definition referred to an obtaining of credit "under false 17 pretences, or by means of any other fraud". In Jones, for example, a man who ordered a meal without pointing out that he had no money was held to be guilty of obtaining credit by fraud but not of obtaining the meal by false pretences: his conduct, though fraudulent, did not amount to a false pretence. Similarly it has been suggested that a charge of conspiracy to defraud may be used where a "false front" has been presented to the public (e.g. a business appears to be reputable and creditworthy when in fact it is neither) but there has been nothing so concrete as a false pretence. However, the concept of deception (as defined in the Theft Act 1968 ) is broader than that of a false pretence in that (inter alia) it includes a misrepresentation as to the defendant's intentions; both Jones and the "false front" could now be treated as cases of obtaining property by deception."
25. Hon'ble Apex Court while considering judgment passed in the matter of Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vs M/S. Shaw Brothers reported in 1992(1) SCC 534 has held that "Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct."
26. Thus, in view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court wherein concept of mis-representation and fraud was considered, looking to the facts of the present case though this Court finds that two parallel proceedings were initiated by the petitioner, but the 18 proceedings before the Civil Court appears to be vitiated due to mis- representation which amounts to fraud played upon by respondent no.1. Thus, according to this Court cannot be said to come in way of deciding the present petition.
27. It is the case of the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was granted to them and the proceedings conducted by Tehsildar which had culminated in order dated 25.10.2019 were dehors the principles of natural justice, so far as this stand is concerned, this Court finds that since the notices on the petitioners and some of the respondents before Tehsildar could not be served, it was directed that they be served by way of publication and though a press note was issued by Tehsildar for its publication in the newspaper, whether the said publication was actually made in the newspaper and prior to the date for which the press note was issued is not known or had even not brought by the respondents or is not confirmed from the record. Apart from that in the press note dated 07.10.2019 there is no mention of a newspaper in which it was to be published. Thus, mere mentioning that the publication was done in the newspaper and copy thereof has been filed as proof by the learned Tehsildar in the proceedings dated 25.10.2019 is not sufficient. In absence of any proper notice to the petitioners, it could be said that there absence before the Tehsildar in the partition proceedings as well as at the time of preparation of Fard Batwara can be said to be bonafide. Also there is no photograph or signature of the present petitioners over the Fard Batwara appended along with the petition which goes to show that at no point of time the petitioners have participated in the said proceedings. Another fact which is required to be taken note of is that in the sale-deed executed in favor of the present respondent no.1 to 4 it is already mentioned that they had purchased a particular piece of land before partition and 19 the same land has been given to them in the partition proceedings which is very well reflected from the note appended to the Fard Batwara, wherein it is written that the Fard Batwara is prepared on the basis of the patwari record as well as the sale-deed executed in favor of the present respondent no.1 to 4. Thus, admittedly, when the respondent no.1 to 4 had purchased an undivided share of some of the co-owners, they could not have acquired any particular piece of land which by way of partition proceedings they have acquired and had got a stamp of approval to which this Court cannot be a silent spectator. As it has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s GAR Re- Rolling Mills & Anr., AIR 1994 SC 2151; and State of Maharashtra and Ors vs. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481, a writ court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and subletties invented to evade law."
28. Thus, this Court is constrained to allow the present petition and while setting aside the orders dated 25.10.2019 passed by Tehsildar in case no.72/2019-20/A-27, order dated 23.03.2020 passed by SDO, Shivpuri in Appeal No.148/2019-20 and order dated 20.01.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner in Second Appeal No.417/2020- 21, remit the matter back to Tehsildar for fresh adjudication of the application under Section 178 of MPLRC for partition after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned including the petitioners.
29. Before parting, this Court deems it expedient to observe that any finding arrived at by this Court, while adjudicating the 20 controversy, is confined only to the present matter and would not have any bearing over the appeal pending against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.17A/2022 and the Appellate Court would be free to take decision as per the record and law, since the present order is based upon the facts and material brought before this Court.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE 28/02/2025 chandni PAWA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH N GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab 301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f26 5f02d9d593f, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, KUMAR serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4F D4455ED49EA436EA65E26164BEEE D89153191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.03.01 10:39:17 +05'30'