Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Begi vs Smt. Shantibai Begi on 8 July, 2022
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 8th OF JULY, 2022
SECOND APPEAL No. 1331 of 2020
Between:-
1. MANISH BEGI, S/O LATE SHRI RAMPRAKASH
BEGI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB.
2. AMIT BEGI S/O LATE RAMPRAKASH BEGI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB.
3. POOJA BEGI, D/O LATE RAMPRAKASH BEGI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NONE.
4. SMT. TULSIBAI, W/O LATE RAMPRAKASH BEGI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE.
ALL R/O. WARD NO.15, SHAAHGARH, TEHSIL
SHAAHGARH DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI NAVNEET DUBEY-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. SHANTIBAI BEGI (Dead)
2. GURUCHARAN BEGI, S/O SHRI BHAIYAN BEGI,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
BOTH R/O. WARD NO.15 SHAAHGARH TEHSIL
SHAAHGARH, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR DISTT. SAGAR
Signature Not (MADHYA PRADESH)
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by .....RESPONDENTS
SWETA SAHU (MS. SHOBHANA SHARMA-ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS 1-2,
Date: 2022.07.12
18:29:32 IST
2
SHRI DEVENDRA SHUKLA-PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
3/STATE )
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants 1-4 challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2020 passed by Additional District Judge, Banda, District Sagar in Civil Appeal No.8/2019 reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2018 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-I, Link Court Shaahgarh, District Sagar in Civil Suit No.21-A/2016, whereby learned trial court dismissed the suit of respondents 1-2/plaintiffs filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction with regard to a house constructed over an area 520 sqft of Khasra No.827/1 situated in village Shaahgarh.
2. Facts in short are that the respondents 1-2/plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction with regard to the said property against the appellants/defendants with the allegations that the plaintiff 1 vide sale deed dated 29.08.2004 purchased an open plot from ancestors of the defendants, Late Ram Prakash Begi, for a consideration of Rs.21,000/- and after receiving the possession got constructed house over it. Ram Prakash Begi in his life time never raised any objection about the aforesaid property, but when the house was completed in January, 2014, the defendants 1-4 made false complaint to the Tehsildar and on 12.08.2014 they took forcible possession over the house. Accordingly, the suit was filed.
3. The defendants 1-4 appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations including the document of sale and the defendants claimed 3 themselves to be owner and in possession. They contended that the alleged document of sale is a fabricated one and it does not confer any right on the plaintiffs. On inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.
4. Learned trial court on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, framed as many as six issues and after considering entire evidence available on record held that the plaintiffs are not bhoomiswami/owner of the property in question and are not entitled for recovery of possession because the document of sale (Ex. P-12) is not a registered document of sale which was compulsorily registrable. Resultantly the suit was dismissed.
5. Upon filing appeal by plaintiffs/respondents 1-2, learned appellate court again considered evidence of the parties and after taking into consideration the proceeding of Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, which was initiated by the defendants 1-4 themselves and ended into its dismissal, found that the defendants have illegally and forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs from the house in question, certainly without following due process of law and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree in question dated 26.05.2020.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the courts have concurrently found that the document of sale in question (Ex.P-12) is not admissible in evidence for want of its compulsorily registration. He submits that in absence of any title over the suit property, the plaintiffs could not be granted relief of possession as has been granted wrongly by learned first appellate court. He further submits that the defendants never dispossessed the plaintiffs from suit house, but they have been in possession over the suit property as owner since beginning. Accordingly he prays for admission of the second appeal.
47. Learned counsel for the respondents 1-2/plaintiffs supported the judgment and decree passed by first appellate court and contended that even in absence of document of sale (Ex.P-12) it is clear that the plaintiffs were in possession of the plot in question and during the life time Ram Prakash Begi never objected to the sale in question and even the defendants never objected till the completion of house. He submits that even after dismissal of their application under Section 250 of the MPLRC, the defendants cannot say that they were in possession of the suit house even prior to 12.08.2014. Placing reliance on Article 64 of the Limitation Act the counsel submits that even in absence of document of ownership, the plaintiffs could file the suit for possession based on previous possession, which has rightly been decreed by first appellate court. Accordingly he prays for dismissal of the second appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Although learned courts below have found that the document of sale (Ex.P-12) being unregistered is not admissible in evidence and on this ground the learned courts held that the plaintiffs do not get any right on the basis of document (Ex.P-12). Even prima facie, there appears no illegality in the findings of ownership recorded by learned courts below. As has been held by this Court in the case of Nathu Khan Vs. Komal and others reported in 2010 (2) MPWN 4 (DB), a document which is complete sale, is required to be registered compulsorily, otherwise is not admissible in evidence.
10. It is undisputed fact that the defendants themselves filed an application under Section 250 of the MPLRC for recovery of possession against the plaintiffs which was dismissed by Tehsildar. In the light of dismissal of application under Section 250 of the MPLRC that too after filing of the civil 5 suit, it cannot be said that the defendants were in possession of the suit property. According to the case of plaintiffs, the defendants had dispossessed them on 12.08.2014. After taking into consideration the entire oral and documentary evidence including the factum of dismissal of application under Section 250 of the MPLRC, leaned lower appellate court has vide para 43 of its judgment, recorded findings that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit plot, they got constructed house over it, they were in possession and were dispossessed forcibly by the defendants 1-4 without following due process of law. These findings do not appear to be perverse or contrary to law.
11. In my considered opinion, merely because the plaintiffs have not been able to prove their title on the basis of document of sale (Ex.P-12), it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were not entitled for decree of restoration of possession. Article 64 of the Limitation Act clearly permits the plaintiffs to institute the suit for possession based on previous possession, certainly within a period of 12 years, which has rightly been decreed by lower appellate court.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no interference is warranted in the findings of fact recorded by learned first appellate court. Resultantly the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC, without any order as to costs.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE ss