IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA rd ON THE 23 OF JULY, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 145 of 2025 MANISH @ BHOLU AND OTHERS Versus SMT. MUNNI DEVI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ram Krishna Upadhyaya - Advocate for appellants. Shri Utkarsh Tikhe- Advocate for respondents/Caveators.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2024 passed by II District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) in Regular Civil Appeal No.13/2023 as well as judgment and decree dated 19.01.2023 passed by III Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) in Regular Civil Suit No.80-A/2015.

2. Appellants are the defendants who have lost their case from both the courts below.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN

3. The facts, necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed house. It is the case of respondent that he had purchased the plot from Smt. Mamta Agrawal by registered sale deed dated 08.07.2004. The plot was got diverted in the year 2005 and accordingly the house was constructed by respondent after obtaining due permissions. When the plastering work of the house of the plaintiff was going on, defendants/appellants started creating nuisance by tying their cows in front of the door of the disputed house. On 26.07.2015, the defendants tied their cow inside the boundary wall of the house and also compelled the labour to run away. When plaintiff objected to the defendants as to why they are not permitting him to carry out the work, then the defendants came there along with lathi and axe. As a result, the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed house came under threat. Accordingly, the suit was filed. During pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended and it was claimed that on 25.04.2016, plaintiff had gone to attend marriage ceremony in family and came back on 30.04.2016. On 01.05.2016, when he reached the disputed house, then he found that on the western side of one room, the defendants had illegally constructed a door with an intention to take forcible possession of the house. It is submitted that father of plaintiff is aged about 92 years and accordingly on 20.12.2020 he went to village Sarwa to look after his father. On 21.12.2020, plaintiff came back to his disputed house and on 20/21.12.2020, defendants illegally took possession of the house in dispute after breaking open the lock and tied their cattle. It was also alleged that goods worth Rs.20,000-25,000 were also stolen by the defendants and the defendants have forcibly kept their belongings. Accordingly, the prayer clause was also amended and a decree for possession Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN was also sought apart from the decree for permanent injunction as well as for closure of the door which was constructed by the defendants.

4. The defendants filed their written statement and also filed their claim. It was submitted that because of friendship between the parties, the defendants had entered into an oral agreement with the plaintiff and on 15.07.2009 plaintiff had taken Rs.60,000/-. The parties are related to each other. After taking an amount of Rs.60,000/-, plaintiff had given permission to defendants to construct the house. The plaintiff has no title in the property in dispute. It was further claimed that the defendants are in possession of the property and accordingly a declaration was sought that on account of verbal agreement to sell arrived at between plaintiff and defendants, the defendants are entitled to get the sale deed executed and a permanent injunction was also sought that till then the plaintiff may be restrained from creating any third party right and interest in respect of the house in question.

5. The Trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence decreed the suit and dismissed the counter-claim. Although