2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 19709
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rameshwar – Appellant
Versus
Balkrishna – Respondent
SA 837/2015
,Advocate General
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2023 SECOND APPEAL No. 837 of 2015 BETWEEN:-
RAMESHWAR S/O SHRI SHANKARLAL BHATT, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O HIRAPUR TAHSIL HARDA, DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH) [DELETED BY ORDER DATED 06.04.2023] THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
1. SMT. SUSHILA W/O SHRI RAMESHWAR AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/O HOUSE NO. 33, WARD NO.3, HEERAPUR HANDIA, DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. YOGENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.33, WARD NO.3, HEERAPUR HANDIA, DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KU. NISHA D/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.33, WARD NO.3, HEERAPUR HANDIA, DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KU. RASHMI D/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. HOUSE NO.33, WARD NO.3, HEERAPUR HANDIA, DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SMT. YOGESHWARI TIWARI W/O RAJENDRA PRASAD TIWARI D/O LATE SHRI RAMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O RAMA COLONY, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS (BY SHRI IMTIYAZ HUSSAIN – SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI RAVIKANT PATEL - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. BALKRISHNA S/O HARKISHAN BRAHMIN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O NYAS COLONY ITARSI (MADHYA PRADESH) [DELETED BY ORDER DATED 06.04.2023]
THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
1(i). SMT. BASANTI TIWARI W/O LATE BALKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O MAHARISHI NAGAR, ITARSI DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
1(ii). SUNIL TIWARI S/O LATE BALKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O MAHARISHI NAGAR, ITARSI DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
1(iii). KAPIL TIWARI S/O LATE BALKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O MAHARISHI NAGAR ITARSI DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
1(iv). SMT. SUNITA W/O AKHILESH D/O LATE BALKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O. SURAJ GANJ, BANK COLONY ITARSI DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
1(v). SMT. BABLI W/O JAI PRAKASH ALIAS GUDDU D/O LATE BALKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHEDA TAHSIL HANDIYA DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VINOD S/O HARKISHAN BRAHMIN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TEACHER R/O KHALWA TAHSIL AND DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH) DELETED BY ORDER DATED 06.04.2023] THROUGH HIS LEAGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
2(a). SMT. KRISHNA BAI W/O LATE VINOD TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHALWA NEAR TIWARI COLONY KHALWA DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2(b). ATUL TIWARI S/O LATE VINOD TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE KHALWA NEAR TIWARI COLONY KHALWA DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2(c). SMT. MINAKSHI DUBEY W/O AKHILESH DUBEY D/O VINOD TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. INFRONT OF SHANKAR MANDIR LANE, INFRONT OF DUKAN RASULIYA DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BRAJBALA D/O HARKISHAN BRAHMIN W/O KAILASH BRAHMIN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O TAHSIL AND DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. SUGNA BAI D/O BABULAL JAT, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DEWAS TAHSIL AND DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUNITA D/O BABULAL JAT, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DEWAS TAHSIL AND DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MAHESH S/O BABULAL JAT, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DEWAS TAHSIL AND DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SANTOSH S/O BABULAL JAT, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DEWAS TAHSIL AND DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SMT. GEETA BAI W/O REWARAM JAT, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AJNAS TAHSIL AND DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. SANTOSH S/O REWARAM JAT, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AJNAS TAHSIL AND DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. RAJU S/O REWARAM JAT, AGED ABOUT
33 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE AJNAS TAHSIL AND DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. SMT. MANI BAI D/O REWARAM JAT, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O JHIRIYA TAHSIL KANNOD DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE COLLECTOR HARDA DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS (MS. PRASANSHA SINGH BAIS – PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.12/STATE)
……………………………………………………………………………………………
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT