2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5772
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Harnarayan Awasthi – Appellant
Versus
Shri Digamber Jain Atishayay Shetra Khajuraho – Respondent
SA 3551/2019
Siddharth Gulatee,Advocate General
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 3rd OF MARCH, 2022 SECOND APPEAL No. 3551 of 2019 Between:-
HARNARAYAN AWASTHI S/O BABULAL AWASTHI , AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/o-KHAJURAHO TEH. RAJNAGAR DISTT. CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the appellant.)
AND
1. SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATISHAYAY SHETRA KHAJURAHO THR. PRABANDH SAMITI ADHYAKSH SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN S/O MOTILAL JAINA/A 65 YEARS R/o- GRAM AHINSA BHAWAN GAADIKHANA CHHATARPUR TEH. AND DISTT.
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHATUR SINGH (DEAD) THR LRS SHIV ASHISH SINGH S/O CHANDRAPAL SINGH , AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O KHAJURAHO, TEHSIL RAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2(a). SHIV ASHISH SINGH S/O- CHANDRAPAL SINGH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O KHAJURAHO, TEHSIL RAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2(b).KHUSHI SINGH S/O CHANDRAPAL SINGH , AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O KHAJURAHO, TEHSIL RAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2(c). GYAN SINGH S/O SHIVPAL SINGH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O KHAJURAHO, TEHSIL RAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2(d). GUDDE SINGH S/O SHIVPAL SINGH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O KHAJURAHO, TEHSIL RAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAMKUNWAR BEWA (DEAD) THR. LRS SHIV KUMAR D/O GOVIND SINGH THAKUR R/O KHAJURAHO, TEHSIL RAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3(a). SHIV KUMAR D/O GOVIND SINGH THAKUR R/O KHAJURAHO, TEHSIL RAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Sig S n A a N ture Not Verified 3(b). DEV KUNWAR D/O GOVIND SINGH THAKUR R/O KHAJURAHO, TEHSIL RAJNAGAR (MADHYA
3(c). CHANDRA JUNWAR D/O GOVIND SINGH THAKUR R/O KHAJURAHO, TEHSIL RAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. COLLECTOR,DISTT-CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. TEHSILDAR RAJNAGAR TAHSIL RAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI Sourav Soni, learned Pl for the respondent/State.)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No. 1 challenging the judgment and decree dated 19-11-2019 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur in Civil Appeal No. 52-A/19 confirming the judgment and decree dated 10-03-2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II Rajnagar, District-Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No. 81-A/2010 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 was decreed.
2. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and for declaring demarcation proceedings illegal as well as for declaring the sale deed dated 08-10-1987 null and void which was got executed by the defendant No. 1 Harnarayan Awasthi from defendant No.2 Chatur Singh. The plaintiff claimed himself to be Bhumiswami and in possession of the land Survey No. 844/2 area 0.50 dismil i.e. 0.202 Are which was purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 08-12-1964 from predecessor Govind Singh and Chatur Singh. It is also alleged that the total area of Survey No. 844 was 0.70 dismil i.e. 0.283 Are, out of which 0.50 dismil i.e. 0.202 Are was sold to the plaintiff and the rest area 0.20 dismil i.e. 0.081 Are, went in construction of road. Accordingly, it is alleged that the defendants have no right over the land in question.
3. The defendant No. 1 claimed himself to be owner and in possession of land area 0.041 Are on the basis of registered sale deed dated 8-10-1987 executed by Chatur Singh out of rest of the land area 0.20 dismil (i.e. 0.081 Are) of Signature Not Verified SAN Survey No. 844 ( which was renumbered as 844/1) and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The defendant No. 2- Chatur Singh and defendant No. 3-Govind Singh supported the case pleaded by defendant No.1. The defendant Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. Collector and Tahsildar contended that the land area 0.50 dismil is in the name of the plaintiff and rest land area 0.20 dismil is recorded as land of road and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed as many as six issues and recorded evidence and after making critical analysis of the evidence available on recor