IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL SECOND APPEAL No. 146 of 1995 Between:-

1.BRAHSPATI KUMAR SON OF BUDDHSENRAM, AGED 33 YEARS

2. RAMLAKHAN SON OF BUDDHSENRAM, AGED 30 YEARS

3. KAILASH PRASAD SON OF BUDDHSENRAM, AGED 26 YEARS

4. RAMNARESH SON OF BUDDHSENRAM, AGED 34 YEARS

5. KESHAV PRASAD SON OF BUDDHSENRAM, AGED 22 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE: SATOHARI, TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTRICT SIDHI, M.P.

6. MAHESH PRASAD SON OF BUDDHSENRAM, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O SATOHARI, TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTRICT SIDHI, M.P..

....................................APPELLANTS (BY SHRI RAVISH AGRAWAL, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MS. SANJANA SAHNI-ADVOCATE)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT AND

1. SARJU PRASAD, SON OF SALIKRAM, AGED

30 YEARS

2. UMASHANKER SON OF SALIKRAM, AGED 25 YEARS, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SATOHARI, TEH. GOPADBANAS, DISTRICT SIDHI, M.P.

3. STATE OF M.P., THROUGH COLLECTOR, SIDHI, M.P.

......................RESPONDENTS .............................................................................................................................................

Reserved on : 02/11/2022 Delivered on : 09/11/2022 .............................................................................................................................................

This appeal coming on for final hearing on this day, the court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1994 passed by 2nd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Sidhi in Civil Appeal No.136-A/1992 reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.07.1982 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Sidhi in Civil Suit No.26-A/1978, whereby learned trial Court decreed the suit, which in appeal filed by legal heirs of original defendant Shalikram, has been dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT

2. In short the facts are that the plaintiffs/appellants instituted a suit for redemption of mortgage and in alternative for recovery of possession on the basis of title as well as for mesne profits. It is alleged that the land khasra no.213 area 7.83 acre situtated in Village Satohari, Tahsil Gopadbanas, was owned and possessed by Ganeshram, who died in the year, 1960 leaving behind him, his son Chandramani Prasad, who being in need of money mortagaged the land for consideration of Rs.150/- in the year, 1952 by executing unregistered mortgage deed with the assurance that upon refund of Rs.150/-, defendant's father Mahaveer Ram shall hand over possession to Chandramani Prasad, who died issueless in the year, 1969 leaving behind him only successor, his wife Mst. Mundi. It is alleged that Chandramani Prasad was uncle of plaintiffs and after death of Chandramani Prasad in the year 1969, his wife Mst. Mundi started residing with the plaintiffs, who were taking care of Mst. Mundi. Due to this reason, Mst. Mundi executed a registered Will in favour of plaintiffs on 13.02.1975, on the basis of which name of plaintiffs was mutuated over the land in question vide order dated 20.09.1977. It is also alleged that due to poverty, Chandramani Prasad could not repay the amount of Rs.150/- and thereafter, Mst. Mundi also could not pay the amount of mortgage and she died on 02.12.1975 after executing registered Will, therefore, plaintiffs are entitled for redemption of mortgage and for restoration of possession on the basis of title. It is alleged that when in the Month of June, 1977 plaintiffs demanded possession from the defendant after making payment of Rs.150/-, then defendant contended that the land was Signature Not Verified Signed by: S HUSHMAT sold to his father by Chandramani Prasad and refused to handover possession, whereas the land was never sold to defendant's father. It is alleged that on the basis of unregistered mortgage deed, defendant's father or defendant does not get any right and he had also got mutuated his name on the basis of alleged sale of lan