IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 10 th OF MAY, 2023 SECOND APPEAL No. 501 of 2000 BETWEEN:-

1. RAMCHARAN @ RAMU, S/O SHYAMLAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O SIRSAUDA POST NARVAR, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. NARAYAN SINGH S/O SHYAMLAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O SIRSAUDA POST NARVAR TAHSIL AND DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. DIVAN SINGH S/O SHYAMLAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O SIRSAUDA POST NARVAR TAHSIL AND DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. BAIJANTIBAI D/O SHYAMLAL LODHI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, SIRSAUDA POST NARVAR, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (BY SHRI RAVISH AGRAWAL – SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SMT. SANJANA SAHANI -

ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SHYAMLAL, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O IMRATLAL, R/O VILLAGE SIRSAUDA, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SMT. NARBADIBAI S/O LAKHAAT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O AMRAVAD TAHSIL AND DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. MANAGER BHOOMI VIKAS BANK BRANCH RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE COLLECTOR RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS THOUGH THE CASE WAS CALLED TWICE)

“Reserved on : 19.04.2023”

“Pronounced on : 10.05.2023”.

This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 12-1-2000 passed by 2^nd Additional District Judge, Raisen in C.A. No. 28-A/1999 arising out of Judgment and Decree dated 24-11-1998 passed by Civil Judge Class 1, Raisen in Civil Suit No. 8-A/1998.

2. The Appellants are the plaintiffs who have lost their case from both the Courts below.

3. The Appellants filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 21- 11-1995 executed by defendant no.1 in favor of defendant no.2. The case of the plaintiffs was that the plaintiffs are the children of defendant no.1. The ancestral property of the Plaintiffs was recorded in the name of their grandfather Imratlal. After the death of Imratlal, the land was recorded in the names of the defendant no.1 and widow of Imratlal, namely Hirobai. Hirobai has also expired and the defendant no.1 became the sole owner of the property in dispute. Even the names of the daughters of Imratlal were not mutated in the revenue records. Accordingly, the defendant no. 1 got his name fraudulently mutated in the revenue records in respect of Kh. No. 33, 60, 79, 149, 221 total area 12.60 acres situated in village Sirsoda, Tahsil and Distt. Raisen. The defendant no.1 is a drunkard and always remains under the influence of alcohol. The defendant no.1 has not partitioned the ancestral properties. It was further alleged that the defendant no.1, without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs has alienated Kh. No. 33 area 1.35 acres of land to defendant no.2 by registered sale deed dated 21-11-1995 for a consideration amount of Rs. 30,000/-. The said amount was not used for the maintenance and betterment of the other ancestral properties. When the plaintiff no.1 got an information regarding an attempt to execute the sale deed, then, he raised an objection before the Sub-Registrar, but inspite of that, the sale deed was executed. The plaintiff no.1 also raised an objection to the mutation of name of defendant no.2. The defendant no.1 has not handed over the possession of the disputed property. The Kh. No. 33 is an irrigated land and various fruit bearing trees are standing but by showing the land as unirrigated land, less consideration amount has been shown with an intention to evade stamp duty. On the said land, the plaintiff no.1 has taken a loan of Rs. 35,000/- from the defendant no.3. The sale deed has been executed on the basis of duplicate Rin Pustika as original Rin Pustika is in possession of plaintiff no.1. The sale deed is not binding and has been executed without consideration amount with an intention