Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J.
Mst. Butani Bai (Dead) Through Lrs Smt. Murdin Bai And Others - Appellant
Versus
Urmila Prasad (Dead) Through Lrs Mst. Draupadi Gupta And Others - Respondent
Second Appeal No.845 Of 2005
Decided On : 20-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Neeraj Singh Chauhan with Shri Ashok Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Mohd. Shafiqullah, Advocate
Joint residence does not establish property as joint family; claims must rely on evidence, not mere assertions.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act - Article 58 - Declaration of title and permanent injunction - The First Appellate Court correctly reversed the Trial Court's finding, holding that the suit property was self-acquired by the plaintiff's father, with the plaintiff in possession. The Trial Court wrongly assumed joint family property due to merely residing together - The suit was held to be within limitation. (Paras 8, 12, 15)
(B) Property Law - Mere joint residence does not imply property acquired in a member's name belongs to the joint family. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of title over land acquired by his father and claimed to be in possession. Defendants contended the property was joint family property based on revenue entries.
Findings of Court:
The First Appellate Court found the land to be self-acquired property of the plaintiff's father and ruled that the plaintiff was in possession of the land.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit due to limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that mere joint residence does not determine the nature of property ownership, relying on the grant of patta and absence of contrary evidence from the defendants.
Result: Second appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of property acquisition and dispute (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendants’ arguments regarding property status (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. trial court's dismissal of suit based on joint family claim (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. arguments presented by both parties in the appeal (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's analysis of evidence and findings (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. court's reasoning on limitation and property title (Para 15) |
| 7. conclusion and dismissal of the appeal (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL, J.
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants1-4 challenging the judgment and decree dtd.05/01/2005 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Shahdol, District Shahdol in Civil Appeal No.11A/2004 reversing the judgment and decree dtd.01/10/1997 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Rajendragram in Civil Suit No.21A/1989 whereby Trial Court dismissed the original respondent 1/plaintiff-Urmila Prasad’s suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction filed in respect of land survey no.300 area 4 acres, situated in Village/Mauja Kirgi, District Shahdol, which has been decreed by First Appellate Court.
2. Facts in short are that the respondent 1/plaintiff-Urmila Prasad had instituted the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with the allegations that along with other lands, the suit land survey no.300 area 4 acres, was acquired by his father, the defendant 8-Gulabdas Gupta and in the year about 1970, there being strain relations in the family, especially with brother-Jagdish Prasad, the plaintiff started residing separately and when he asked for his share, he was given the land of survey no.300 area 4 acres by the father and since thereafter he is in cultivating possession of the land. It is alleged that when the defendants 1-7 on the basis of revenue entries, started making interference in possession of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff after receiving the certified copies of the revenue record, filed the suit.
3. The defendants 1-4 appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and contended that the suit property is not self acquired property of Gulabdas Gupta but it is joint Hindu family property, regarding which partition has already taken place, in which the land came in share of defendant 1-Butani Bai and accordingly the defendants are in possession. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.
4. The defendants 5-7 did not file any written statement. However, the defendant 8 filed his separate written statement and admitted the plaint allegations and contended the suit land to be his self acquired property, altogether different from the joint Hindu family property.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence. In support of his case the plaintiff examined Narmada Gupta (PW/1), Gulabdas Gupta (PW/2), Dalsah Singh (PW/3) and produced documents (Ex.P/1 to P/5). In rebuttal, the defendants examined Dwarika Prasad (DW/1) and Naanshah (DW/2), however did not produce any documentary evidence.
6. After hearing the parties, Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dtd.01/10/1997, dismissed the suit holding the suit land to be a joint Hindu family property of the parties and also held that the suit is barred by limitation in respect of the relief claimed by the plaintiff to the effect that the mutation entry and partition order is null and void, however held the suit to be within limitation in respect of relief of declaration of title.
7. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred civil appeal. After hearing the parties, First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dtd.05/01/2005 allowed the civil appeal and decreed the suit holding the suit property to be a self acquired property of Gulabdas Gupta and at the same time it is also held that the plaintiff is in possession.
8. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court, instant second appeal
