IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 2^nd OF MARCH, 2022 SECOND APPEAL No. 8 of 1999 Between:-

SMT. KESAR BAI, D/O HIMMAT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE, DORAHA DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI ADITYA ADHIKARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SATISH CHATURVEDI ADVOCATE)

AND

1. GENDA LAL S/O DARIYAV SINGH, AGED 30 YEARS.

2. SMT. MEVA BAI (DEAD)

BOTH R/O VILLAGE, DORAHA, DISTRICT SEHORE (M.P.).

3. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, SEHORE (M.P.).

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI MUKUND AGRAWAL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3).

This appeal coming on for final this day, the court passed the following:

JUDGMENT

This second appeal under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.11.1998 passed by District Judge, Sehore in Civil Appeal No.83-A/1994 reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.9.1994 passed by First Civil Judge Class-II, Sehore in Civil Suit No.43-A/1994 with regard to 2 acres of land out of total area 6.46 acres of land bearing in survey no.15/4-20 situated in village Sikandarganj Tehsil Sehore.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Gendalal and smt. Mewa Bai instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against defendant No.1-Smt. Keshar Bai with the allegations that father and husband of plaintiffs namely late Dariyab Singh purchased the said land vide registered sale deed dated 31.08.1967 from Nannulal S/o Himmat Singh and received possession and since then Dariyab Singh and after his death plaintiffs are in possession after Signature Not Verified SAN getting their names mutated in the revenue record. Defendant Keshar Bai is sister of Nannulal and is threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs. It is alleged that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land with effect from 31.8.1967 in the knowledge of defendant and her ancestor Himmat Singh, accordingly prayed for declaration of title and sought decree of permanent injunction in their favour. 3. Defendant filed written statement, denied the plaint allegation and contended that the plaintiffs have received possession from Nannulal but the defendant is successor of Himmat Singh and has been in possession along with mother Sampat Bai. Sale deed dated 31.8.1967 is forged and sham document because Nannulal is not successor of Himmat Singh and had no right to sell the land. The plaintiffs or their father/ husband late Dariyab Singh never remained in possession. The mutation made in favour of plaintiffs was cancelled in appeal vide order dated 30.8.1993 passed by Sub Divisional Officer and in the Civil Suit No.29-A/1992 (Ex.D.1), the defendant and her mother Sampat Bai were declared joint owner and in possession. It is contended that the land is jointly held by defendant and her mother Sampat Bai, who is necessary party, as such the suit is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. In view of aforesaid pleadings as many as 10 issues were framed by learned trial Court and recorded evidence of the parties. The plaintiffs examined as many as seven witnesses in their support and submitted documentary evidence sale deed dated 31.8.1967 (Ex.P.1) and Khasra of the year 1989-93 (Ex.P.2). As against this the defendant No.1 examined herself as D.W.1 and also examined Amrit Singh in her support and submitted documentary evidence Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7.

5. Vide judgment and decree dated 14.9.1994 learned trial Court dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs holding that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs is illegal because Nannulal had no right to execute the sale deed and vide paragraph 46 it was held that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the land, therefore, there is no question of acquisition of title by adverse possession. Upon filing appeal by the plaintiffs learned first appellate Court had decreed the suit holding specifically that the plaintiffs do