IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA st ON THE 1 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 SECOND APPEAL No. 303 of 2020 BETWEEN:-

JAGANNATH S/O PUNAJI MARU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE BARKHEDA TEHSIL SARDARPUR DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI A.S. GARG - SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI ADITYA GARG -

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT)

AND

1. RAMCHANDRA S/O NANDRAM MARU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE BARKHEDA TEHSIL SARDARPUR DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. BAGDIRAM S/O NANDRAM MARU, AGED ABOUT

48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE BARKHEDA, TEHSIL SARDARPUR, DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. MUNNIBAI W/O SHANTILAL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE BARKHEDA, TEHSIL SARDARPUR, DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. STATE OF MP, THROUGH COLLECTOR COLLECTOR DHAR DIST DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed on 04.11.2019 by First Additional District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar in RCA No. 21/2017 by which the appellate Court had confirmed the judgment and decree passed on 08.05.2017 by Civil Judge Class-II, Sardarpur, District Dhar in Civil Suit No.1-A/2014 by which the appellant defendants counter claim was dismissed for the relief of specific performance of contract, declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and injunction.

2. The case before the trial Court was that respondent plaintiff filed a suit regarding agricultural land bearing survey No. 853 area 0.355 hectare, village Barkheda, Tehsil Sardarpur, District Dhar for the injunction against the defendants.

3. The defendant appellant filed written statement and alongwith that he has filed a counter claim on the basis that the disputed land bearing Survey No. 853 area 0.355 hecatare and residential house as per the agreement dated 19.07.1983 to sale was executed by plaintiff Ramchandra and the possession was handed over to him. The possession of the house was given at that time and for the possession of the disputed land it was agreed that possession will be handed over just after the crop is ripe. The plaintiff has received Rs. 6000/- part amount of the consideration before the agreement and on 27.12.1983 received an amount of Rs. 19,000/- as consideration and the possession of the disputed land was given to him, since 1983 the defendant is in possession of the disputed land peacefully and open in knowledge of plaintiffs. Thus, on the basis of the agreement he seeks the relief of title on the ground of adverse possession and alternatively prayed for the relief of specific performance of the contract and also for the relief of injunction against the plaintiff.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI

4. The plaintiff in reply to the counter claim especially denied that the possession of the disputed land was given to the respondent and the counter claim is time barred and prayed for dismissal of the counter claim.

5. The learned trial Court framed the issues and recorded the evidence of the parties during the trial and plaintiffs have withdrawn their suit and the trial Court permitted so the plaintiff's suit was dismissed and the counter claim was decided on merit and counter claim was dismissed.

6. The appeal was filed before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed with the findings that the defendant/appellant failed to prove the execution of the agreement to sale, and failed to prove the readiness and willingness and also failed to prove the adverse possession so not entitled for the decree. Thus, the second appeal.

7. In the second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial Court as well as first appellate Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence as no attestation is required to prove the contract to sale. Trial Court on the wrong assumption