1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 30th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 5257 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
DRISHTI DEVCON PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR SHRI SHAILESH MAHESHWARI S/O
LATE
SHRI
SHIVNARAYAN
MAHESHWARI,
AGED
ABOUT
48
YEARS,
OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 406 PUKHRAJ CORPORATE NEAR
HOTEL PRASHANT OPPOSITE NAVLAKHA BUS
STAND INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY PATHAK – ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
SHIVPRASAD S/O SHRI BALARAM, AGED
ABOUT
45
YEARS,
OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE
CULTIVATOR
VILLAGE
HARSOLA TEHSIL DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
MHOW
DISTRICT
INDORE
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
2.
SATISH S/O SHRI BALARAM, AGED ABOUT
40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
CULTIVATOR VILLAGE HARSOLA TEH.
DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, MHOW (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3.
SMT. SHIVKANTA W/O SHRI GANESH
PATIDAR,
AGED
ABOUT
42
YEARS,
OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE
VILLAGE
RANGWASA
TEH.
RAU
(MADHYA
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 11-12-2023
18:51:46
Signature Not Verified
2
PRADESH)
4.
SMT. PUSHPA W/O RAJESH PATIDAR, AGED
ABOUT
42
YEARS,
OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE KAILOD TEH. DR.
AMBEDKAR NAGAR, MHOW (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5.
STATE
OF
M.P.
THOUGH
THROUGH
COLLECTOR INDORE OFFICE NO. 101,
ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLEX,
MOTI
TABELA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
6.
VASUDEV S/O RAMGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 65
YEARS,
OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE/CULTIVATOR
VILLAGE
RANGWASA,
TEH.
RAU
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
7.
MAMTA W/O ASHOK KUMAR PATIDAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE/
CULTIVATOR
VILLAGE
KHAJRANA
TEH.
INDORE
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANU MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 4
AND SHRI CHETAN JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7)
………………………………………………………………………………………….
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
INJUNCTION - BONA FIDE PURCHASER - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - [The court held that the balance of convenience lies in favor of the appellant, who is a bona fide purchaser of the suit land and has developed a colony on it and sold it to hundreds of purchasers, whose rights are also involved in the matter. The court set aside the injunction order passed by the trial court, which restrained the appellant from alienating the property.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a company, purchased a piece of land from the respondents in 2013. The appellant obtained all the requisite permissions and developed a colony on the land, which it sold to hundreds of purchasers. The plaintiffs, who are the nephews of the respondents, filed a suit for declaration, possession, and partition of the land, alleging that they were not aware of the sale and that they were entitled to a share in the property. The trial court granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser of the suit land and that the plaintiffs had slept over their rights for a period of around nine years. The court also found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the appellant, who had already sold the property after developing it after incurring huge costs. The court held that the loss which the plaintiffs had suffered or might have suffered could now be compensated in terms of money only by the defendants, and they could not claim the property back which had already been sold in the year 2013 and resold to hundreds of persons.
Issues: Whether the appellant was a bona fide purchaser of the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser of the suit land and that the plaintiffs had slept over their rights for a period of around nine years. The court also found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the appellant, who had already sold the property after developing it after incurring huge costs.
Final Decision: The court set aside the injunction order passed by the trial court, which restrained the appellant from alienating the property.
Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2]
This
miscellaneous
appeal
has
been
filed
by
the
appellant/defendant No.1 Company under Order XLIII Rule 1 of
CPC against the order of injunction dated 12.10.2022, passed by the
IV District Judge, Indore in Civil Original Suit No.989-A/2022,
3
whereby, in a suit for declaration, possession and partition, the
temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff has been
allowed and it is directed that the defendant no.1 shall not create
any third party right on the property.
3]
In brief, the facts of the case are that the present
appellant/defendant No.1 purchased the disputed land from the
respondents/defendants Nos.6 and 7, for a consideration of
Rs.4,65,24,000/- through a registered sale deed executed on
28.09.2013, and thereafter, the land was also mutated in the name of
the appellant. Subsequently, diversion order was also obtained on
13.05.2014, and after obtaining the permission for development of a
colony, the appellant has already developed a colony on the said
land ad-measuring 6.482 hectares. The appellant has also
surrendered 28028.47 sq.m. to the Government and the plots of the
said colony have also been sold to as many as 442 plot owners.
4]
In respect of the aforesaid land, a civil suit has been filed by
the plaintiffs, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, alleging that they
happen to be the nephews of defendant Nos.6 and 7. It is averred in
the plaint that the land originally belonged to one Ramgopal Patidar,
who was survived by three children viz., Laxmibai, Vasudev and
Mamtabai and his wife Gitabai. The plaintiffs are the sons of
Laxmibai and the suit was filed on the premise that the plaintiffs are
residing in Village Harsola Rangwasa, Tehsil Mhow, District Indore
whereas, the disputed land is situated at Village Sindoda and as the
plaintiffs’ mother Laxmibai died in the year 2011, the disputed land
4
was mutated initially in the names of Gitabai W/o Ramgopal and
Vasudev S/o Ramgopal in the year 1997. However, after the death
of Gitabai in the year 2013, the name of Mamtabai, who happens to
be the daughter of Ramgopal was also mutated in the revenue
record along with Vasudev. The plaintiffs’ case was that they were
not aware of all these proceedings, and it was only in the year 2022
when they went to their village when they found that a colony has
been developed on the land of their ancestors, which led them to file
this civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction and partition. In
which the application for temporary injunction has been allowed.
5]
Shri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the appellant had purchased the property from the
respondent Nos.6 and 7 after due verification that no other co-
owner of the disputed land is in existence, which is also reflected
from the affidavit of respondent No.6/defendant No.2 Vasudev as
also the mutation register (Annexure-R/2), in which the villagers
have vouched that there is no other legal representative of the
deceased Gitabai. It is also submitted that the petitioner Company is
a bona fide purchaser of the said land, which is also apparent from
all the permissions which they took after purchasing the land for a
consideration of Rs.4,65,24,000/- in the year 2013. Counsel has
submitted that the aforesaid land has been developed into a colony
and its plots have been sold to as many as 442 persons, the details
regarding which were also submitted before the Trial Court,
however, the Trial Court has held that the appellant has not filed any
5
sale deed to support his submission that the land has already been
sold to various purchasers.
6]
It is also submitted by Shri Pathak that the appellant had
submitted an application under Order X Rule 1 of CPC, in which he
had furnished all the details of the sale deeds. A copy of the
aforesa
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.