Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
VIVEK RUSIA, J.
Shivnarayan - Appellant
Versus
Shakuntalabai and Ors. - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 301 of 2019
Decided On : 08-03-2021
Encroachment - Property Dispute - Registration Act, Section 70 - The court affirmed the ownership of the suit land in favor of the plaintiffs and directed the defendant to hand over possession. The defendant's claim of ownership based on a hand-written sale deed was rejected due to lack of registration, as per Section 70 of the Registration Act. The court also dismissed the defendant's plea for amendment to claim specific performance of contract, as he had initially claimed ownership based on the sale deed. The court held that the findings of fact by the lower courts were not liable to be interfered with in second appeal, citing precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a widow, filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendant, who claimed ownership of the suit land based on a hand-written sale deed. The lower courts decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, affirming their ownership and directing the defendant to hand over possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the ownership of the suit land in favor of the plaintiffs and directed the defendant to hand over possession, rejecting the defendant's claim based on the unregistered sale deed.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the sale deed, the opportunity to remove a technical objection, the statute of limitations, and the dismissal of the application for amendment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the unregistered sale deed was not admissible as per Section 70 of the Registration Act, and rejected the defendant's plea for amendment as he had initially claimed ownership based on the sale deed. The court also held that the findings of fact by the lower courts were not liable to be interfered with in second appeal, citing precedents.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court affirmed the lower courts' decision in favor of the plaintiffs.
ORDER :
Vivek Rusia, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the defendant No. 1 against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2014 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Nalkheda, district Shajapur whereby the civil suit filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 has been decreed and affirmed by the first appellate Court, Susner vide judgment dated 17.12.2018.
Facts of the case in short are as under:
2. Respondent No. 1 is a widow of late Bhagirath and respondents No. 2 & 3 are the daughters of Bhagirath. Late Bhagirath was the owner of land bearing survey Nos. 207/1 & 208/4, total area 0.627 hectares, situated at Gram Semli, Tahsil Nalkheda which is commonly known as "Seva Ba Vala Kheth" (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'). After the death of Bhagirath the name of respondents No. 1 to 3 were mutated in the revenue record. According to the plaintiff the appellant has illegally encroached over the suit land without any right and title on it. He has not permitted the plaintiff to cultivate the land on 08.05.2008 and threatened to kill her. Since the children were minor, therefore, respondent No. 1 did not take any legal action at the relevant point of time. The appellant used to give the assurance that he will remove his encroachment but when finally he disputed the title of the plaintiff on 10.04.2010 the plaintiffs' filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
3. After receipt of the summons the appellant being the defendant No. 1 preferred a written statement. By way of special pleading he has stated that the plaintiff No. 1 had already sold the suit land on 25.03.2000 to him for Rs. 60,000/- and the possession was also given and since then he is continuously in possession and doing farming in it. Now dishonesty has come in the mind of the plaintiffs and filed the written statement. The defendant No. 1 filed a counter claim also seeking declaration of title of the suit land.
4. On the basis of the pleading learned trial Court framed 9 issues for adjudication which are as under:
2- D;k oknhx.k oknxzLr Hkwfe izfroknh Ø- 01 ls vkf/kiR; izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS \
3- D;k izfroknh Ø- 01 us oknxzLr Hkwfe l-u- 207@1 o 208@4 la;qDr jdck 0-627 gS- fnukad 25-03-2000 dks 59]000@& #i;s es oknh Ø- 01 ls Ø; dj vkf/kiR; izkIr dj fy;k \
4- D;k izfroknh Ø- 01 oknxzLr Hkwfe ds Lokeh gksdj vkf/kiR;/kkjh gS \
5- D;k oknhx.k }kjk okn dk mfpr ewY;kadu dj i;kZIr U;k;'kqYd vnk fd;k x;k \
6- D;k izfroknh Ø- 01 }kjk okn dk mfpr ewY;kadu dj i;kZIr U;k;'kqYd vnk fd;k x;k \
7- D;k oknhx.k izfroknh Ø- 01 ls varorhZ ykHk Lo#i 20]000@& #i;s izfro"kZ izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS \
8- D;k izfroknh Ø- 01 }kjk voS/k mn~ns'; ls izfrnkok izLrqr djus ls oknhx.k fo'ks"k {kfriwfrZ Lo#i 3]000&3]000@& #i;s izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS \
9- lgk;r ,oa okn O;; \
5. In support of the suit, plaintiff No. 1 examined herself as PW/1 and got exhibited Kishtbandi Khatauni of the year 2011-12 as Ex. P/1. The defendant/appellant examined himself as DW/1 and got exhibited sale deed dated 25.03.2000 as Ex. D/1. He has also examined Bhawarlal as DW/2, Ramkaran DW/3, Shivsingh DW/4, Jagdish DW/5 & Chandarsingh DW/6. After appreciating the evidence came on record vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2014 learned Civil Judge, Class-II has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that the suit land is in the ownership of plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 i.e. respondents No. 1 to 3 and directed the defendant No. 1 i.e. the appellant to hand over the possession within two months. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendant No. 1 preferred a first appeal but remained unsuccessful, hence the present second appeal before this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that learned Courts below have failed to appreciate Ex. D/1 by which the plaintiff No
The validity of a sale deed and the requirement for registration as per Section 70 of the Registration Act were central to the court's decision.
The admissibility of evidence, proper legal procedures in mutation proceedings, burden of proof in ownership disputes, and the binding nature of concurrent findings of fact in appellate courts.
It is trite that once declaration of right, title and interest have been granted in favour of a particular person, person who claims adversarial interest has to show a better title as to why he shoul....
The importance of presenting timely and substantiated evidence to support claims, and the consequences of negligence and lack of diligence in pursuing legal remedies.
The second appeal requires substantial questions of law that affect party rights; concurrent factual findings from lower courts are binding unless proved perverse.
Second Appeal is competent only if it involves, at the stage of admission, substantial question of law.
The main legal point established is that in a dispute over a sale deed, the plaintiff must establish a clear and specific identity of the land to prove a better title than the defendant.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
