Madhya Pradesh High Court
Janardhan Prasad vs Jagdish Prasad on 18 June, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1905 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
JANARDHAN PRASAD S/O SHRI DWARIKA PRASAD BRAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 40
1.
YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE AND AGRICULTURE.
SURYA PRASAD S/O SHRI DWARIKA PRASAD BRAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
2.
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE.
HEMANT KUMAR TIWARI, S/O SHRI DWARIKA PRASAD BRAHMAN, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE.
3.
ALL R/O VILLAGE LAKHAHA, TEHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI AKHILESH JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
JAGDISH PRASAD, S/O SHRI DWARIKA BRAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE LAKHAHA, TEHSIL RAMPUR
BAGHELAN, DIST. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH).
MOHAN PRASAD, S/O SHRI DWARIKA PRASAD BRAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 50
2. YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE LAKHAHA, TEHSIL RAMPUR
BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
SMT. MANRAJIYA, W/O LAXMAN PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
3.
HOUSE WIFE.
2
SHIVKUMAR (SINCE DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS :-
4 a) JANKI DEVI, W/O LATE SHIVKUMAR PATHAK, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
4.
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE, R/O VILLAGE DEORI, POST BIDA, TEHSIL RAMPUR
BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
UMASHANKAR PATHAK, S/O LATE SHIVKUMAR PATHAK, AGED ABOUT 45
4 b). YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE DEORI, POST BIDA, TEHSIL
RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAMASHANKAR PATHAK, S/O LATE SHIVKUMAR PATHAK, AGED ABOUT 42
4 c). YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DEORI, POST BIDA, TEHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISTRICT
SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
SMT. PADMA PYASI, D/O LATE SHIVKUMAR PATHAK, W/O SANJU PYASI, AGED
4 d). ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE, R/O VILLAGE JONHI, POST
KACHUR, TEHSIL HUZUR, DISTRICT REWA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
BIJENDRA KKUMAR (SINCE DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS:-
5.
5 a) PARWATI PATHAK, W/O SHRI BIJENDRA PATHAK, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
5 b). JITENDRA KUMAR, S/O SHRI BIJENDRA PATHAK, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
5 c). MUNEND KUMAR, S/O SHRI BIJENDRA PATHAK, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
DEVENDRA KUMAR, S/O SHRI BIJENDRA PATHAK, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
5 d).
NO. 5 a) TO 5 d) R/O DEORI, POST BEENDA, TEHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN,
DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
RANI, W/O RAMNARESH PYASI, D/O BIJENDRA PATHAK, R/O VILLAGE POST
5 e).
DELHA SONWARI, TEHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
AYODHYA PRASAD (SINCE DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS :-
6.
6 a) JOJE AYODHYA PRASAD, W/O LATE SHRI AYODHYA PRASAD.
6 b) TRIVEDI PRASAD PATHAK, S/O LATE SHRI AYODHYA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT
6 b).
23 YEARS.
6 c). LALTI D/O LATE SHRI AYODHYA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
6 d). PUSHPA, D/O LATE SHRI AYODHYA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT YEARS.
3
6 e). SHUSHMA, D/O LATE SHRI AYODHYA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT YEARS.
6 f). PRATIBHA, D/O LATE SHRI AYODHYA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT YEARS.
6 g). REETA, D/O LATE SHRI AYODHYA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT YEARS.
GEETA, D/O LATE SHRI AYODHYA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT YEARS.
6 h).
ALL R/O DEORI POST BEENDA, TEHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA,
(M.P. ).
RAMPAL, S/O RAM MANOHAR, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
7.
AGRICULTURE.
NARMADA PRASAD (SINCE DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS :-
8. 8 A) AMOL PRASAD PATHAK, D/O LATE NARMADA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, R/O DEVEERHAL NIWAS KAIMOR, ACC CEMENT FACTORY, SATNA,
(MADHYA PRADESH).
VIDYAWATI PANDEY, W/O GOPIKA PRASAD, D/O LATE NARMADA PRASAD, R/O
8 B).
VILLAGE /POST BHOLGARH, DISTRICT REWA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
SANT PRASAD (SINCE DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS :-
9. 9 a) RAMASRAYA PRASD PATHAK, S/O LATE SANT PRASAD PATHAK, R/O VILLAGE
DEORI POST DEORI, TEHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA
PRADESH).
RAMPRAKASH PATHAK, S/O LATE SANT PRASAD PATHAK, R/O NCL SINGRAULI
9 b).
POST SINGRAULI, DISTRICT SIDHI, (MADHYA PRADESH).
URMILA, D/O LATE SANT PRASAD PATHAK, W/O RAMLAL PANDEY, R/O
9 c).
JUDMANI TEHSIL RAMNAGAR, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
SMT. SURAJ, D/O LATE SANT PRASAD PATHAK, R/O BHAGWAT PRASAD
9 d). TRIPATHI, R/O BHATANWARA, POST BHATANWARA, TEHSIL UCHEHRA, DISTRICT
SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
RAMKHELAWAN (SINCE DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS :-
10.
10 a) SATILIYA, W/O LATE RAMKHELAWAN, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE, R/O DEORI, POST BEENDA, TEHSIL RAMPUR
4
BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
SAVITRI, D/O LATE RAMKHELAWAN, W/O SHYAMLAL PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 65
10
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE, R/O VILLAGE JUDWANI, (KHODARI), POST
b).
ARGAT TEHSIL RAMNAGAR, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
GAYATRI, D/O LATE RAMKHELAWAN, W/O LATE KAUSHAL PRASAD PANDEY,
10 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION :- HOUSE WIFE, R/O VILLAGE
c). KANCHANPUR, POST KOTHI, TEHISL KOTHI, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA
PRADESH).
SANTOSIYA D/O LATE RAMKHELAWAN, W/O RAMAWTAR PANDEY, AGED
10
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE, R/O VILLAGE NAUGAWAN, POST
d).
KUMHARI, TEHSIL AMARPATAN, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
ASHA, D/O LATE RAMKHELAWAN, W/O MAHENDRA PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 50
10
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE, R/O VILLAGE SHIVRAJPUR, POST
e).
SHIVRAJPUR, TEHSIL NAGAUD, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
HARDATT PRASAD (SINCE DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS :-
11. 11 a) RAOOPNARAYAN PATHAK, S/O LATE HARDATT PRASAD PATHAK, R/O
VILLAGE LAKHHA DEORI, TEHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA,
(MADHYA PRADESH).
11 YASHODA D/O LATE HARDATT PRASAD PATHAK, W/O RAMMILAN DHATURHA,
b). R/O JHAND, TEHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATN, (MADHYA PRADESH)
11 MANNI, D/O LATE HARDATT PRASAD PATHAK, W/O SAUKHILAL PAYASI, R/O
c). JHAND, TEHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
11 ANNAPURNA, S/O SHRI DURGA PRASAD PATHAK, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O
e). DEORI, TEHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAMKINKAN, S/O SHRI DURGA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O DEORI,
11 f).
TEHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
SHANKAR, S/O SHRI DURGA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O DEORI,
11 g).
TEHSIL RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISSTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
12. RAMJANAK MISHRA, S/O LAVKUSH PRASAD MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND SERVICE, R/O VILLAGE CHORHATA, TEHSIL
5
RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
SHIVSHANKAR PRASAD, S/O LAVKUSH PRASAD MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 36
13. YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE CHORHATA, TEHSIL RAMPUR
BAGHELAN, DISTRICT SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH).
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT SATNA
14.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHARAD VERMA AND SHRI ASHISH SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.4 ).
........................................................................................................................................
..
Reserved on 11.03.2024.
Judgment delivered on 18.06.2024.
......................................................................................................................................................
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment coming on for
pronouncement this day, JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH passed the
following :-
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2017 passed in R.C.A.33 of 2015 by the Additional District Judge, Link Court, Rampur Baghelan, District Satna, M.P. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants- plaintiffs confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.106-A of 2010 by the Court of learned 6 Civil Judge, Class-II, Rampur Baghelan, district Satna (Janardan Prasad and another Vs. Jagdish Prasad and others).
2. The facts in brief for disposal of this appeal are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and declaration that sale deed against their interest is void and for permanent injunction against the defendants in favour of plaintiffs.
3. The plaintiffs had averred in the trial court that the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 3 belong to one family. One Ram Bharosa had two sons, namely Dwarka and Kedar Prasad. The plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 are sons of Dwarka Prasad. Khasra No. 1423 of village Lakhha Pepkhar, Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, district Satna was jointly cultivated by the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 3. The patta of the suit land was allotted to father of plaintiffs ( defendant no.1) grand - father of plaintiffs Ram Bharose and uncle of plaintiffs (Kedar Prasad) in Samvat 2002 by Rewa State. The partition between the plaintiffs' grand father- Ram Bharosa, father of the plaintiffs and uncle were held on Samvat 2004 and the suit land was allotted to father of plaintiffs, i.e. defendant no.1. It was further pleaded that the possession of the suit land was with defendant no.1. Thereafter, in the year 1988, the partition between the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 3 was held in which each of the plaintiffs got 1/3rd share and thereafter cultivated their shares. Defendant nos. 7 1 to 3 are formal parties and no relief is claimed from them. It was also pleaded that defendant nos. 4 to 12 without any authority and in collusion with revenue authorities got their names mutated in revenue records and thereafter illegally by sale dated 24.3.1982 sold the suit land to defendant nos. 13 and 14. The plaintiffs claimed that in the year 1995, they were cultivating the suit land. The defendant no. 14 alongwith defendant nos. 4 to 12 came on the spot and tried to restrain the plaintiffs from cultivating the field and they informed about execution of sale deed of the suit property in their favour. Therefore, this suit was filed for the relief as prayed for.
4. The defendant nos. 4 to 14 filed W.S. and submitted that the defendant nos. 13 and 14 have purchased the suit land by registered sale deed dated 24.7.1982 from Pattedar and they are cultivating the land. The suit land was ancestral property of defendant nos. 4 to 12.
5. This second appeal was filed on the ground that defendant nos. 4 to 12 failed to show the origin of their title. The findings of the court is erroneous regarding title of defendant nos. 4 to 12 in regard to document Ex. P-1 to P-3 of plaintiffs, which shows land allotment to predecessors of plaintiffs.
6. It is seen that the plaintiffs' main argument is that patta of the suit land was given by Rewa State in Samwat 2002 and in Samvat 2004 partition took place and the land was partitioned between their father and grand father of the 8 plaintiffs and Kedar Prasad, father of the plaintiffs got the suit property in partition.
7. Considered the arguments and perused the record. It is seen that suit property was sold in the year 1982, therefore, the question of partition in the year 1988 does not arise. On perusal of the record, it is seen that plaintiffs have filed Sijara Khandan (lineage tree of the family), but it is seen that no witness has been produced by the plaintiffs to prove the Sijara Khandan (lineage tree of the family) as correctly recorded in Para-10 of the judgment by the trial court therefore it is not proved that the plaintiffs are of the family of Ram Bharosa.
8. It is also correctly held by the learned trial court in Para-11 of the judgment that the plaintiffs are claiming partition in the year 1988 and if for the sake of argument, if it is presumed that the partition took place in the year 1988, then it is very strange that how the partition can take place when defendant nos. 13 and 14 had purchased the suit land, otherwise they would have objected to the partition. If on 24th March 1982, the defendant nos. 13 and 14 had purchased the land, then why plaintiffs and other family members did not object to it.
9. On perusal of Ex. P-9, the mutation register it is seen that at the time of mutation in favour of the defendant nos. 13 and 14 all sellers were present. If 9 any land was mutated in violation of right of plaintiffs, then as a normal human conduct, they/their father would have objected to the same. Plaintiff- appellant, Hemant Kumar Tiwari (PW-1) in Para-11 of cross- examination has admitted the suggestion :-
Þ;g lgh gS fd fookfnr vkjkth ds ekfyd izfr- dz- 4 rk 12 Fks mlh ds vk/kkj ij mUgksaus 24@8@82 dks izfr- dz- 13] 14 jketud ,oa f'ko'kadj dks fodz; dj fn;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd mlh csph ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr vkjkth dk ukekraj.k izfr- dz- jketud ,oa f'ko'kadj ds uke gks x;k FkkAß In Para-13, this witness has stated :-
Þge oknh x.k us vkt rd cVokjk ds vk/kkj ij ukekraj.k dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha fd;k gS tks dk;Zokgh fd;k gS og ogh fd;k gSAß
10. Therefore, it is amply proved that the argument that plaintiffs/appellants herein are owners of suit land and that they received the suit property in partition was not proved as held by both the courts because the sale deed was executed in the year 1982 and mutation was done in 1988 in favour of the opposite party and in presence of opposite party, therefore, keeping of silence by opposite party/sellers draws a natural presumption that they had no tittle over the suit land by way of partition, inheritance or in any other way.
11. Therefore, it is seen that no ground to admit this second appeal is made out. Both the courts have considered the pleadings and evidence minutely.
12. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is well defined by 10 catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. This Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact until or unless the same is perverse or contrary to material on record. [See: Narayan Rajendran and Anr. v. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 189, Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Antoher, (2012) 8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa, (2011) 1 SCC 158 Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishnath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare, (2013) 7 SCC 173 and Laxmidevamma and Others v. Ranganath and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 264] The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record which by no stretch of imagination can be said either to be perverse or based on no evidence.
13. Therefore, this second appeal is dismissed having no substantial question of law much less a substantial question of law.
AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH JUDGE bks 11