IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA FIRST APPEAL No. 137 of 2001 MUNNIBAI Versus SATYA NARAYAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Harish Kumar Dixit, Senior Advocate with Shri Parth Dixit, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Ankur Maheshwari, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Reserved on : 03/07/2025 Pronounced on: 10^th/07/2025

JUDGMENT

This first appeal, under Section 96 of the CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 2.01.2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Sheopurkalan in Civil Suit No. 5B/1997.

2. The original plaintiff has expired during the pendency of this appeal and the appeal is being prosecuted by her legal representatives.

3. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiff filed a suit pleading inter alia that she is the owner and in possession of Survey No. 302, area 4 Bigha 15 Biswa, Survey No. 304, area 28 Bigha 10 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND Biswa, total area 33 Bigha 5 Biswa situated at Village Nagdi. The order of temporary injunction is in force against the defendants. In Samvat 2047 (year 1990), plaintiff had sown mustard crop which was stolen by defendants in February, 1991. On FIR lodged by plaintiff, 3 trolleys of mustard crop were seized by Police from the possession of defendants and the remaining mustard crop was misappropriated by defendants. It is the case of plaintiff that the property mentioned in paragraph one of the plaint is an irrigated land and on an average 4 quintals of mustard was being yielded from one bigha of land and, thus, it was pleaded that about 132 quintals of mustard must have been yielded from the land in question, whereas she could get only three trolleys i.e., 9 quintals of mustard and the remaining 123 quintals of mustard has been misappropriated by defendants. The cost of mustard at the relevant point of time was ₹900 per quintal. Therefore, plaintiff has suffered a loss of ₹1,10,700. Even if the expenses borne by defendants for harvesting the standing crop are deducted, still plaintiff has suffered actual loss of ₹1,05,000 for which she is entitled to. Notice was sent by plaintiff to defendants No. 1, 2, and 3 by registered letter dated 8.7.1999 but neither any reply was given nor the amount was paid. Therefore, the suit was filed.

Defendant No. 1, Satyanarayan, filed his written statement and denied plaint averments. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also filed written statement and claimed that they are residents of village Bardhabujurg District Sheopur, which is about 8 to 10 km away from the disputed land. The crop cannot be cut within 1–2 hours. The FIR lodged by plaintiff was false. Criminal case in respect of theft of crop was also registered and by judgment dated 3.6.1998, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted. It was claimed that the mustard which was seized by the police from their courtyard should be returned back to them. Allegation of theft of mustard was denied. However, no counter-claim was filed for return of 9 quintals of mustard.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND

4. The trial court, after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed the suit.

5. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, it is submitted by counsel for appellants that the findings recorded by the trial court to the effect that plaintiff has failed to prove that defendants had committed theft of mustard is erroneous. It is submitted that a civil suit was pending between original plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and in spite of temporary injunction order, defendant No. 1 had dispossessed the plaintiff and ultimately plaintiff could get back the possession of the land in dispute only after the order was passed by the High Court. Therefore, if the plaintiff had given explanation that she did not approach the Civil Court immediately thereby making a complaint that defendants are trying to cut the crop merely because “no heed was paid by the court”, then the same cannot be said to be fals