IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH nd ON THE 2 OF MAY, 2024 SECOND APPEAL No. 101 of 2015 BETWEEN:-

RAMPRASAD S/O RAMRATAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PIPALBE, TEHSIL BIAORA, DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT/DEFENDANT (MR. JYOTI SWAROOP DAVE, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)

AND MANGIBAI W/O LATE RAMBAKSH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 1. GRAM PIPALBE, TEHSIL BIAORA DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

JAGDISH S/O LATE RAMBASH OCCUPATION: NIL GRAM-

2. PIPLABE,TEHSIL BIAORA DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

JITENDRA S/O LATE RAMBASH OCCUPATION: NIL GRAM-

3. PIPLABE,TEHSIL BIAORA DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

SONU S/O LATE RAMBASH OCCUPATION: NIL GRAM-

4. PIPLABE, TEHSIL BIAORA DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH

5.

COLLECTOR, DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS (MR. CHETAN JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/STATE) This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:-

O R D E R

Appellant/defendant has preferred this second appeal under Signature Not Verified Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2014 passed by First Additional District Judge, Biaora, District Rajgarh (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal No.04-A/2014 arising out of judgment and decree dated 18.02.2014 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.46-A/2011 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Biaora, District Rajgarh (MP), by which the first appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

(2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs had filed the civil suit against the appellant/defendant for permanent injunction and recovery of possession and has pleaded that agricultural land bearing survey no.12/21/2, rakba 0.893 hectares situated at Gram Pipalbe, Tehsil Biaora, District Rajgarh (MP) is in the name of plaintiff and on 01.11.2011 the defendant has encroached the suit land of plaintiff and has stopped them for doing the agricultural work on the said suit land. Thereafter the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

(3) The appellant/defendant had filed the written statement and has pleaded that the suit land was purchased by him 20-22 years back by way of oral agreement with sale consideration of Rs.800/-. Thereafter the plaintiff has delivered the possession to the defendant and denied the averments and prays for rejection of the suit.

(4) The trial court has framed the issues and after taking the evidence, decreed the suit of plaintiff dated 18.02.2014.

Signature Not Verified (5) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant has filed the appeal before the first appellate court which was dismissed by the first appellate court and has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

(6) I have heard counsel for the appellant/defendant and have perused the records of the case with due care.

(7) From the perusal of the record, it appears that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the civil suit against the appellant/defendant for recovery of possession and permanent injunction and has pleaded that he purchased the suit land by way of oral agreement and has submitted that the plaintiff has not denied the possession of the defendant in cross-examination so his possession was proved.

(8) In rebuttal, counsel for the appellant has filed the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Badamilal Dubey vs. Chandra Prakash and Others, reported in 1997 (2) JLJ 193 to bolster his submissions.

(9) On perusal of the record, it was found that the plaintiff is owner in the revenue record. The defendant has argued that he purchased the suit land by way of oral agreement but according to Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, that no immoveable property which values up-to Rs.1.00 lakh can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of Meghmala and Others vs. G. Narsimha Reddy and Others reported in 2010 Vol.-8 SCC