IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2023 SECOND APPEAL No. 799 of 2019 BETWEEN:-

1. NAEEM KHAN S/O SHRI RASOOL KHAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMAR, R/o TAAJ COLONY, CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. MANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O SHRI M.K AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER RESIDENT OF HATWARA MOHALLA CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH GULATEE - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. NATHTHUA S/O LATE SUMMERA AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, VILL. BAGUATA TEH. AND DISTT. CHHATARUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. BASANTA S/O LATE SHRI SUMMERA AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGUATA TEHSIL AND DISTT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. GHANSHYAM S/O LATE SHRI SUMMERA AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGUATA TEHSIL AND DISTT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. NATHTHUA S/O LATE SHRI SHUKHSEENGA AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGUATA TEHSIL AND DISTT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. LACHHUA S/O LATE SHRI SHUKHSEENGA AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGUATA TEHSIL AND DISTT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. STATE OF MP THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTT CHHATARPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI SHAILENDRA SINGH PATEL – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3)

(MS. SHANTI TIWARI – PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.6/STATE )

This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: JUDGMENT This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2019 passed by the Second Additional District Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur in RCA No.15-A/2018 arising out of judgment and decree dated 31.08.2013 passed by 3^rd Civil Judge, Class-II, Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.16-A/2012.

2. It is not out of place to mention here that the vendors and vendees of the sale deed in question had filed Regular Civil Appeals No.14-A/2018 and 15-A/2018 and both were consolidated and have been decided by a common judgment.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the vendees against the judgment passed in an appeal filed by them but it appears that the vendors have not filed any appeal against the judgment passed in RCA No.14-A/2018. It is not out of place to mention here that it has been held that Patta was granted to father of plaintiffs, whereas the vendors and vendee are the defendants.

4. Be that whatever it may be.

5. The plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 are the legal representatives of one Sumera Ahirwar being his sons and wife. They filed a civil suit alleging that Khasra No.2379/7 and 2379/8 admeasuring 0.304 hectares and 1.214 hectares situated in village Bagauta, Tashil and District Chhatapur are the disputed properties. A patta was granted to Sumera in the year 1960 who with his physical efforts made it cultivable and accordingly by order dated 18.04.1985 passed in Revenue Case No.23/A-19/84-85, the Tahsildar, Chhatarpur declared Sumera as Bhumiswami of the aforesaid lands with a condition that he shall not transfer the disputed property without prior permission of Collector. After death of Sumera, the plaintiffs are cultivating the land and have also dug a well in the aforesaid land for the purpose of irrigation.

6. It was alleged that the defendants in connivance with the revenue authorities have got the names of defendants No.1 and 2 mutated in the revenue records by order dated 20.01.2010. Taking advantage of the aforesaid entry, the defendants No.1 and 2 have sold the property to the defendants No.3 and 4/appellants and the appellants have also got their names mutated in the revenue records. Accordingly, it was prayed that the plaintiffs be declared as Bhumiswami of the disputed properties and the sale deed executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of the defendants No. 3 and 4/appellants as well as the mutation of the names of the defendants in the revenue records be declared as null and void and the defendant