Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10240
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
,
Smt. Vimla Bai D/O Kamarlal W/O Gopal Kushwah Thr. Power Of Attorney Holder Rahul Kushwah – Appellant
Versus
Ramsnehi – Respondent
WP 5151/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [List of names]
For the Respondents: [List of names]
Natural justice requires proper notice and opportunity to be heard in legal proceedings; orders obtained through misrepresentation are void.
Headnote:(A) MPLRC - Section 178 - Partition proceedings - The petition was filed against the orders of Tehsildar, SDO, and Additional Commissioner regarding partition, initially allowed under Section 178, which were affirmed on appeal. The petitioners argued violation of natural justice due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard. The court found misrepresentation and suppression of facts by the respondents, leading to a decision that the proceedings were void and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. (Paras 1-28)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized that proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and that any order obtained through misrepresentation is unsustainable. (Paras 8-20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged partition orders claiming lack of notice and misrepresentation in earlier proceedings. The respondents had purchased shares in the property and sought partition, leading to contested orders.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not properly notified, and the partition proceedings were flawed due to misrepresentation and lack of due process.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were afforded proper notice and opportunity to be heard in the partition proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that orders obtained through misrepresentation are void and emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the case involves a challenge to partition orders based on procedural fairness. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments presented highlight violations of natural justice and misrepresentation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court observations emphasize the need for adherence to natural justice. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 27) |
| 4. court's reasoning centers on the principle that fraud invalidates judicial proceedings. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. the final conclusion remits the case for fresh adjudication based on findings. (Para 28) |
ORDER
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by Tehsildar in partition case No.72/2019-20/A-27, order dated 23.03.2020 passed by SDO, Shivpuri in Appeal No.148/2019-20 and order dated 20.01.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner in Second Appeal No.417/2020-21, whereby initially Tehsildar had allowed an application under Section 178 of MPLRC for partition preferred at the instance of the present respondents no.1 to 4 and the said orders were affirmed by the SDO and the Additional Commissioner and the appeals preferred by the present petitioners were dismissed.
2. Short facts leading to the controversy are that the property in question was originally held by one Kamar Lal who was having four sons and five daughters.
3. Initially present petitioner no.2 along with three other sisters Sukhiya, Puniya, Kalawati preferred one application under Section 178 for partition which was allowed vide order dated 05.05.2017 and as per the appended Fard Batawara (exhibit-1) and the Map (exhibit- 2) the partition was accepted. The said partition was challenged by present respondents no.5 to 8 in appeal no.111/2016-17 before the SDO which was allowed vide order dated 04.12.2017 and the order of partition dated 05.05.2017 was set aside, against which present petitioners and other sisters Sukhiya, Puniya and Kalawati preferred a Second Appeal No.525/2017-18 which was withdrawn on behalf of the appellants therein on the basis of compromise (appended as Annexure B to I.A. No.3495/2023 filed by the petitioners on 19.02.2023). In the said compromise it was agreed that with regard to land bearing survey nos.88 and 81/221 the parties are reserving rights to continue with the partition proceedings and for the rest survey numbers, the compromise shall exist.
4. Prior to withdrawal of the seconal appeal, Sukhiya, Puniya and Kalawati sold their unpartitioned share in the property to respondents no.1 to 4 vide sale-deed dated 24.07.2019. In the sale-deed it was mentioned that the three were having 1/3rd share of 0.475 hectares in survey no. 88/1/10 ad-measuring 0.032 hectares, survey no.88/2 ad- measuring 0.591 hectares, survey no.88/3 ad-measuring 0.761 hectares, survey no.221/81/2 ad-measuring 0.042 hectares, but mentioned therein that the said land is situated on bypass road ad- measuring 120 feet in width and rest in length and the entire land is irrigated and is not having well, trees, crops or any house and is ancestral land and there is no bar of Section 165 of MPLRC and Ceiling Act over the said land. It was also mentioned therein that there was even no dispute in any Court or office with regard to said land nor there is any stay order over it. It was also mentioned that in Tehsildar's Office, in the office of SDO, Collector, Civil Court, High Court and Supreme Court no matter is pending regarding the said land and if it is found that there is some dispute, then it would be the sole responsibility of the seller.
5. After getting the sale-deed executed in their favor present respondent no.1 to 4 moved an application under Section 178 of MPLRC for partition which was registered as case No.72/2019-20/A- 27, as admittedly they had purchased undivided share in the property on 16.09.2019. On 30.09.2019 notices were issued to the present petitioners and other respondents and the matter was post
