IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 4 th OF MAY, 2023 SECOND APPEAL No. 304 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

PARIS GRIH NIRMAN SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT BHOPAL (A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER M.P.CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT) REGD.NO.DRB 507/86, THROUGH ARADHNA MORIYA D/O SHRI V.P. MORIYA AGED 40 YEARS HAVING IS OFFICE AT BLOCK B- 7/B, LALITA NAGAR, VILLAGE NAYAPURA, KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI Y.VIDYARTHI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE SHRI MOOLCHAND JAIN AGED ADULT, R/O INSIDE FORT, VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SMT. RINKI JAIN W/O SHRI ASHISH JAIN, AGED ADULT, R/O SILWANI DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SHRI NANNULAL S/O SHRI KALURAM, AGED ADULT, R/O BAIRAGARH CHICHLI, TEHSIL HUJUR, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (MS.SHANTI TIWARI – PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE)

………………………………………………………………………………………

This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: JUDGMENT This appeal under section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2022 passed by Seventh District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Appeal No.9200177/2017, arising out of judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017 passed by Fifteenth Civil Judge, Class-I, District Bhopal in Civil Suit No.567-

A/2008.

2. The appellant, who is the plaintiff, has lost its case from both the Courts below.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal in short, are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that the appellant is a society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. A verbal agreement was entered into by the plaintiff/society to purchase the property in dispute from its ex-owner Nannulal for a consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. The consideration amount was paid in different instalments on different places and accordingly the ex-owner Nannulal executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Pratibha Singh on 06.11.1996 and gave the authority to execute the sale deed in respect of the land in dispute. On 20.03.2000, the ex-owner Nannulal was called in the office of society and the ex-owner Nannulal permitted the Power of Attorney holder to execute the sale deed. The original Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustika was handed over by the ex-owner Nannulal and expressed his inability to attend the office of the Sub-Registrar and gave a written letter in this respect, which contains the thumb impression of the ex-owner Nannulal. The society had entered into an agreement to purchase Khasra No.175/1/2 situated in Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal, area 1.25 acres, out of total area of 5 acres. The boundaries of the property were that on eastern side the land of Rahim Khan/Habib Khan etc. was situated; whereas on the western side, the land of the plaintiff was situated, on the northern side, the land of Mr.Jain was situated and on the southern side, the land of seller was situated. The land was sold to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 23.03.2000, which was executed by holder of Power of Attorney. On the basis of the said registered sale deed, the plaintiff moved an application for mutation, which is still pending and the ex-owner Nannulal has not appeared despite service of notice. Thereafter the plaintiff came to know that the intentions of Nannulal have become dishonest and he is trying to alienate it to somebody else and accordingly a public notice was published in the newspaper. In spite of that, Nannulal and Patwari acted in a malafide manner, partitioned the property and Patwari by registered sale deed dated 08.02.2008 got the land sold in favour of his relatives/defendants no.2 and 3 and mutation was also done on 09.02.2008 i.e. within one day only. By misrepresenting the Tahsildar, the Patwari also obtained the counter signature of Tahsildar on 26.02.2008; whereas the case of the plaintiff