IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI

th

ON THE 9 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 7272 of 2024 AANANDILAL AND OTHERS Versus GRACELAND HABITATS SERENE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Satyajeet Mane, learned counsel for the appellants.

Shri Ajay Bagadiya, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Gajendra Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

ORDER The appellants have filed this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned III District Judge, Indore in Regular Civil Suit No.576-A/2024, whereby the application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and

2 of the CPC has been rejected.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs were the owners, title holders and in possession of ancestral agricultural land (for short suit property), the details of which are mentioned in para 5.1 of the present appeal. The suit property is situated in Village Dhannad, Tehsil Rau, District Indore.

2.1 Three sale deeds in respect to the suit property were executed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE the appellants in favour of respondent No.1 on 26.05.2022.

2.2 After the execution of the sale deeds, a dispute arose between the appellants/plaintiffs and respondent/defendant No.1. Consequently, Civil Suit No.576-A/2020 was filed by the appellants before the learned trial Court. Along with the plaint, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and

2 of the CPC was also filed.

2.3 In the plaint as well as application filed under Order XXXIX Rule

1 and 2, it was averred that the sale deeds were got executed fraudulently; that there was no valid transaction between the appellants and respondent No.1; and that the appellants are still in possession of the suit property. 3. Respondent No.2 filed a reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC thereby denying the claim of the appellants. The learned trial Court, after considering the rival submissions and the material available on record, passed the impugned order dated

06.08.2024, thereby rejecting the application filed by the appellants.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants/plaintiffs are the owners of land situated in 19 survey numbers, as mentioned in para 5.1 of the present appeal, admeasuring a total of 11.629 hectares, which constitutes the suit property in the present dispute.

4.1 It is submitted that all the plaintiffs are close relatives of each other and the suit property is ancestral in nature. They are all engaged in agricultural activities on the suit property. It has also been stated that respondent No.2 is the son of appellant No.3.

4.2 Respondent No.1, in collusion with respondent No.3, falsely Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE represented to the appellants that respondent No.2 was the authorized signatory of respondent No.1/Company and thereby induced the appellants to execute three registered sale deeds in favour of respondent No.1 Company on 26.05.2022, 8.07.2022 and 20.07.2022.

4.3 It has been stated that appellants never intended to alienate the suit property in favour of respondent No.1 Company. However, the respondents have fraudulently prepared sale deeds of the suit property and further got the suit property mutated in their name. Moreover, the entire sale consideration has not been paid by respondent No.1. The respondents have now also instituted proceedings under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code before the concerned Revenue Authority.

4.4 In the back drop of above facts and pleadings, the learned counsel, by referring to Annexure P-8, submits that the documents annexed are electricity bills pertaining to the suit property as well as Krishi Upaj Mandi receipts. The document at Annexure P-9 is a certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, certifying that the appellants