Concurrence of factual findings precludes interference in second appeals unless substantial perversity is demonstrated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA nd ON THE 22 OF JULY, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 351 of 2007 PARMAL SINGH AND OTHERS Versus SANTOK SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rajiv Jain - Advocate for appellants.

Shri Shiv Kumar Yadav - Advocate for respondents.

ORDER This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2007 passed by II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Pichhore, District Shivpuri in Regular Civil Appeal No.42- A/2005 as well as judgment and decree dated 10.01.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Khaniyadhana, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.39-A/2003.

2. Appellants are the plaintiff who have lost their case from both the Courts below.

3. Mathura Bai widow of Murli Yadav is the original plaintiff who died during the pendency of civil suit and appellants were substituted in her place.

4 . According to the plaintiff, plaintiff had 1½ share in the property mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint. 1/6 share is undisputed but the dispute is in respect of 1/3 share of plaintiff which was alienated to the defendants No.1 and

2 by registered sale deed.

5. It is the case of plaintiff that after the death of her husband, plaintiff was not interested to reside with her daughter in view of social rituals and accordingly, Signature Not Verified she kept the defendants No.1 and 2 who are the sons of her sisters with her so that they may take care of her. It was agreed upon between the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 that in case if they continue to take care of her, then she would execute the Will in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of certain pieces of land. Accordingly, with an intention to execute a Will, original plaintiff went to Pichhore alongwith defendants No.1 and 2. Son-in-law of original plaintiff namely Tofan Singh was also accompanying the original plaintiff and went to the office of sub-registrar. It is the case of plaintiff that by playing fraud on the plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 got the sale deed executed in respect of 1/3 share of plaintiff in Survey Nos.38, 42, 88, 148, 152, 156. It is submitted that in fact no sale deed was executed by her. Later on, she came to know about the fact that defendants No.1 and 2 have got the sale deed executed on 26.04.1985, therefore, on 24.07.1988 there was a hot talk between plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2. Although plaintiff was intending to lodge the FIR, but under the advice of members of the society, she did not lodge the FIR and an assurance was also given by defendants No.1 and 2 that within a period of one month, they would get the sale deed cancelled and would execute the sale deed in the name of original plaintiff. However, defendants No.1 and 2 neither executed the deed of cancellation nor talked to the plaintiff. For about one year, they were always trying to avoid the execution of cancellation deed and accordingly, defendants No.1 and 2 denied the title of plaintiff on 24.07.1989. Thus, suit was filed for declaration that registered sale deed executed by original plaintiff in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 on 26.04.1985 be declared as null and void. It appears that subsequently suit was also amended and after the death of Mathura Bai, it was claimed by present appellants that Mathura Bai had executed the Will in their Signature Not Verified favour on 20.03.1991 and after the death of Mathura Bai on 03.09.1996 appellants have become owner of entire share of their maternal grand mother Mathura Bai and thus, it was claimed that appellants are the owner and in possession of land in dispute.

6. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was claimed that after making payment of entire consideration amount, registered sale deed was executed on 26.04.1985 in respect of share of original plaintiff which is to the ext