IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH th ON THE 19 OF NOVEMBER, 2024 SECOND APPEAL No. 2389 of 2023 NAVALSINGH AND OTHERS Versus MANA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Yash Pal Rathore - advocate for the petitioners.

Ms Harshlata Soni - Panel lawyer for the respondents State.

ORDER This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2023 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2022 by District Judge, Jobat, District Alirajpur arising out of judgment and decree dated 30.06.2022 in Regular Civil Suit No.48- A/2019 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jobat, District Alirajpur, wherein appellants plaintiffs are un-succesful in seeking the relief of permanent injunction regarding agricultural land comprising survey No. 2236, 2264, 2295 total area 1.6200 hectare situated at viallge Ringol Tehsil Chandra Shekhar Azad Nagar, District Alirajpur.

2. Facts in brief are that plaintiffs/appellants and respondent No.1/defendant are the real brothers and plaintiffs filed a civil suit for permanent injunction on the ground that the land was allotted to defendant No.1 being the eldest son of Kunjiya by the Collector through Exhibit-D-1 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI for the agriculture year for the year 1974-1975 to 1979-1980, but Kunjiya had partitioned the suit land in his son's and they cultivated the land by drawing a separate boundary marks but taking the advantage of mutation in the revenue records the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is interfering in the possession. Hence, the suit was filed.

3. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 filed the written statement and claimed the suit owner of the disputed property on the basis of Exhibit-D-1 dated 17.09.1974. Trial Court framed total nine issues and recorded the evidence of Nawal Singh as PW-1, Gopal Solanki as PW-2, Pratap Bhuriya as PW-3, Fatima Bhee as PW-4 and admitted the documents Exhibit-P-1 to Exhibit-P-3. Defendent No.1 examined himself as DW-1 and adduced Exhibit-D-1 to D-5.

4. Appreciating the evidence the trial Court did not found prove the case set up by the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit and first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging both the concurrent findings, this Second appeal is preferred on the following substantial questions of law :-

"A- Whether without following due process of law interference of defendant on the suit land can be restrained and possession of plaintiff can be protected by granting decree of permanent injunction ?

B- Whether judgment and decree passed by the courts below is illegal and perverse?

C- Whether document Ex-P/3 “was not properly interpreted Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI by the courts below?"

5. Both the Courts below has recorded the concurrent findings that defendant No.1/respondent No.1 is in possession of disputed land. Exhibit- D-1 discloses that 'patta' was issued in favour of defendant No.1/respondent No.1, though for a limited period and the land was mutated in the name of defendant No.1/respondent No.1. When the land was allotted to defendant No.1/respondent No.1 then on the theory that their father partitioned the property, no substantial questions of law arises and the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.

No order as to costs.

(GAJENDRA SINGH)

JUDGE rashmi Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI