Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 55649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI ON THE 1st OF MARCH, 2024 SECOND APPEAL No. 2570 of 2023 BETWEEN:- 1. SUJAN SINGH S/O SHRI KATHAILAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, VILLAGE KACCHAUA TEH PICHHORE DISTRICT SHIVPURI MP (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. KARAN SINGH S/O SHRI KATHAILAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, VILLAGE KACCHAUA, TEHSIL PICCHORE DIST. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. FERAN SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL PREPRESENTATIVES SHRI SURENDRA S/O LATE SHRI FERAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, VILLAGE KACCHAUA, TEHSIL PICCHORE DIST. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPELLANTS (BY SHRI SURESH AGARWAL - ADVOCATE) AND 1. RAM PRASAD S/O SHRI PYARELAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, VILLAGE KACCHAUA TEH PICHHORE DISTRICT SHIVPURI MP (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. SMT. PARWATI W/O SHRI BAGHRAJ LODHI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, VILLAGE SIRSONA TEHSIL KARERA DIST. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH) 3. DEVLAL S/O SHRI RAM RATAN LODHI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, VILLAGE KACCHAUA, TEHSIL PICCHORE DIST. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH) 4. FOOLWATI W/O SHRI AMAN SINGH LODHI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, VILLAGE KACCHAUA, TEHSIL PICCHORE DIST. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH) 5. KAPOORI W/O SHRI HARIRAM LODHI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, VILLAGE BHONTI, TEHSIL PICCHORE DIST. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH) 6. RUNIYA W/O SHRI AMANLAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, VILLAGE RAIPURA, TEHSIL PICCHORE DIST. SHIVURI (MADHYA PRADESH) 7. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI VIJAY SUNDARAM - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.7/STATE ) This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Suresh Agrawal,Advocate General
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the proper proof of a Will in accordance with the law to establish title over disputed land.
Headnote:
Will - Disputed Land - Appellants claimed title over the disputed land through a Will allegedly executed by the Rani widow of Karanju. The courts found that the Will was not proved in accordance with the law, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a civil suit claiming declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants on the disputed land. They claimed ownership through a Will allegedly executed by the Rani widow of Karanju.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the first appellate court found that the Will in favor of the appellants was not proved in accordance with the law, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the Will claimed by the appellants as the basis for their title over the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts relied on the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the proof of the Will and found that the execution of the Will by Rani in favor of the appellants was not proved in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law was involved, and there was no justification for disturbing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below.
JUDGEMENT
This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2023 passed by Additional District Judge, Pichhor, District Shivpuri in RCA No.08/2019 whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge Class-I, Pichhor, District Shivpuri in RCS A No.20-A/2014 was upheld. Appellants who were plaintiffs before learned trial Court had filed civil suit claiming declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants on the disputed land bearing survey no.2038 area 0.31 hectare, survey no.2040 area 0.07 hectare, survey no.2041 area 0.10 hectare, survey no.2908 area 0.16 hectare and survey no.2909 area 0.34 hectare situated in village Kacchaua Tehsil Pichhor, District Shivpuri. It is not in dispute that earlier title holder of the disputed land was Karanju s/o Madhu Lodhi who in his life time on 26.06.1962 sold half of the land of survey nos.1193/1 to 1193/4 to Ramratan and Partap both sons of Sardar Lodhi and for half of the land Karanju continued to be owner and possession holder during his life time. As per appellants, Rani widow of Karanju became sole owner of the disputed land after death of Karanju. The appellants were given the disputed land vide Will dated 23.10.1971 by Rani. After that appellants/plaintiffs became title holder of the disputed land but father of respondent/defendant No.1 and 2 Pyarelal Lodhi in collusion with Revenue Officers in minority of plaintiffs got entered their names in Revenue records but possession remained with the appellants. On 26.06.2013, when respondent No.1 and 2 threatened the appellants to dispossess them from the disputed land alleging that they are title holders of the land, plaintiffs took copies from Revenue record on 03.07.2013 and found that names of respondent No.1 and 2 have wrongly been entered on the disputed land and therefore, filed the suit for declaration and possession as mentioned herein above.
Learned counsel for the appellants taking this Court to cross-examination para 7 of Ramprasad (PW-1) has contended that even after his admission that Rani lived with Karanju as his wife, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs which is bad in law. Learned First Appellate Court has also not taken this evidence in consideration and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court which also deserves reversal. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karedla Parthasaradhi Vs. Gangula Ramanamma (D) Thr. Lr. And Ors. reported in 2014 (15) SCC 789 vide judgment dated 04.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No.3872 of 2009 to bolster his submission. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
From perusal of the record, it is apparent that learned trial Court while appreciating the Will (Exhibit P/1) has mentioned that in this Will, no description of disputed land has been given. Learned trial Court has also noted overwriting on Will that in the factual situation when Rani had no issue, then appellants cannot be her sons. Learned trial Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment taking recourse to the provisions of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act regarding proof of Will has given finding that execution of Will by Rani in favour of appellants has not been proved in accordance with law. Thus, while giving negative finding on issue No.1 and 2, the suit of the appellant/plaintiffs has been dismissed.
Learned First Appellate Court duly appreciated the evidence and keeping in view the prevailing legal provisions affirmed the finding that Will is not proved as per law. Since, Will in favour of the appellants has not been found proved in accordance with law, therefore, they cannot be presumed to have become the title holders of the disputed land.
When appellants have claimed title over the disputed land through Will allegedly executed by the Rani widow of Karanju which has not been found proved then the judgment
