Ownership disputes do not preclude the need for boundary demarcation to resolve conflicts between adjacent landowners.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI th ON THE 19 OF JUNE, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 4449 of 2025 SMT. ALKA SHARMA Versus MOHANKUMAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Chetan Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.

ORDER The appellant / plaintiff has filed this Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.03.2025 passed by learned XI District Judge, Indore in Regular Civil Appeal No.17/2024, whereby the case has been remanded to the learned trial Court in exercise of powers under Order 41 Rule 23A of CPC with a direction to get the land of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 Mohankumar demarcated, thereafter, upon receiving the demarcation report, record the evidence and after hearing both the parties, pass fresh judgment.

The brief facts giving rise to this case are that the appellant / plaintiff filed Civil Suit bearing RCS No.19000068A/2014 before the learned trial Court claiming the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing survey No.188/1/1/1 and 1888/1/1/2, admeasuring area 0.061 hectares situated at Gram Devguradiya, Tehsil and District Indore.

According to the plaintiff, the land was purchased by her vide Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE registered sale deed dated 16.06.1992, which was exhibited as Ex.P/2 before the trial Court. She stated that she was in possession of the said land. It was also stated in the plaint that the land of the respondent / defendant No.1 is situated adjacent to the land of the plaintiff, who was trying to encroach upon the land of the plaintiff. Thus, the suit was came to be filed by the appellant /

plaintiff for the aforementioned relief.

The learned trial Court after framing as many as five issues, rendered the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2023, whereby the suit of the appellant was partly decreed. It was declared that the appellant is the owner of the land in question. However, issue No.2 was decided against the appellant / plaintiff. Consequently, the learned trial Court declined to grant relief of permanent injunction, as it was not found that respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect to the suit land.

The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated

20.10.2023 preferred regular Civil Appeal No.17/2024 before the XI District Judge, Indore. The said appeal was decided by the learned first appellate Court vide judgment dated 29.03.2025, whereby the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court in exercise of powers under Order 41 Rule 23A. The learned trial Court in Para 14 of the said judgment has recorded specific finding that the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 have admitted the title of each other for their respective lands. It has been mentioned in the impugned order that both have purchased their respective lands vide registered sale deeds executed on same date i.e. on Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE

16.06.1992. It has been further recorded in the judgment that Mohankumar has got his land demarcated.

The learned First Appellate Court in Para 14 of the judgment has also recorded a finding that plaintiff has stated herself that she had filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC before the learned trial Court for local inspection of the disputed land but the same was rejected by the learned trial Court as it appeared from order sheet dated

12.07.2019.

Consequent to the findings as recorded in Paras 13 and 14 by the learned first appellate Court, the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for getting the disputed land i.e. land of the ownership of plaintiff and the land of respondent / defendant No.1 Mohankumar as well demarcated. After receiving the report, it was also directed that both the parties shall be allowed to lead their evidence an