SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6600

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:

Advocates:
Sanjay Pathak,

A bona fide purchaser of a property who has developed the property and sold it to hundreds of purchasers is entitled to the protection of the court, even if the plaintiffs have a claim to the property.

Headnote:

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top