IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA st ON THE 1 OF JULY, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 3266 of 2024 NOOR MOHAMMAD (DEAD) THROUGH LRS 1. SMT ZARINA BEE AND OTHERS Versus AAMNA BEE AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rahul Yadav, Advocate for LRs of appellant.

Shri S.S. Kushwaha, Government Advocate for respondent No.4/State.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.9.2024 passed by II Additional Judge to the Court of First District Judge, Basoda, District Vidisha in Regular Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2020, as well as, judgment and decree dated 28.1.2020 passed by III Civil Judge Class 1, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in RCSA No.02/1988.

2. Original plaintiff Noor Mohammad has expired during the pendency of this appeal and the present appeal is being prosecuted by legal representatives of original plaintiff Noor Mohammad.

3. Original plaintiff has lost his case from both the Courts below.

4. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction as well as for Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND possession in respect of Survey Nos. 18, 34, 40, 43, 103, 209, 275, 276 total area 8.402 hectares situated in Village Grahni, Tahsil Basoda, District Vidisha. 5. Undisputed fact is that defendant No. 1 has executed a sale deed dated 29.1.1988 in respect of the disputed properties in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Masiti Bi had expired in the month of October, 1985. In the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C, SDM, Basoda by order dated 2.1.2007 in Revenue Case No. 120/1990 has protected the possession of defendant Nos. 2 and 3.

6. It is the case of plaintiff that Masiti B was the owner of Arazi No. 275 and 276. About 12 years back, she had given the said land to plaintiff for cultivating purposes and about 7 years back, she executed a Will in favour of plaintiff and since then plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute as owner. Remaining disputed land was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 Amna Bi, who had given the land on Batai to plaintiff on the condition that he would continuously pay Rs.1100/- or otherwise crop in lieu of Rs.1100/- per year. Accordingly it was pleaded that plaintiff had continuously given crop in lieu of Rs.1100/- to Amna Bi and, accordingly, he has acquired title under Section 190 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959. Thus it is the case of plaintiff that so far as Arazi Nos. 275 and 276 are concerned, plaintiff is owner and is in possession of Araazi Nos. 275 and 276 by virtue of Will executed by Masiti Bi. So far as the remaining land is concerned, defendant No. 1 Amna Bi has no right or title and accordingly sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 Amna Bi in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is null and void. It was further stated that after the order was passed by SDO, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have taken forcible possession of the property and accordingly relief for possession was also sought.

7. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and claimed that father of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND defendant No. 1 and appellant namely Gaus Mohammed had 1/2 share in the property in dispute. Masiti Bi had never executed any Will in favour of appellant. Appellant was never in possession of disputed property in any capacity and accordingly it was prayed that the suit filed by plaintiff be dismissed.

8. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also filed written statement and claimed that Masiti Bi had never executed any Will in favour of appellant during her lifetime. By registered sale deed dated 2.8.1961, Masiti Bi had already sold her entire share to Amna Bi / defendant No. 1. Amna Bi had never given the land on batai to plaintiff nor had ever given possession of the same. Amna Bi has not lost her title by virtue of judgment dated 13.8.2001. Amna Bi had every right to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and