IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI MISC. APPEAL No. 1857 of 2020 SMT. SUNITA PRIHAR Versus SEVARAM AANJNA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manish Manana, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Deepak Kumar Rawal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

ORDER Heard on : 24.09.2025 Pronounced on : 02.12.2025.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The appellant has filed this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (u) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 24.01.2020 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.20/2019, whereby the matter was remanded back to the trial Court with the framing of four issues in accordance with para 19 of the impugned award.

2. Shorts facts of the case are the the plaintiff / appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sale, possession and permanent injunction.

2.1 The appellant averred in its plaint that the defendants / respondents No.1 and 2 are the joint owner and possession holder of the land situated in Survey No.434 (admeasuring 0.13 hectares), Survey No.437 (admeasuring 0.26 hectares) and Survey No.438 (admeasuring 0.32 hectares) (herein after termed as suit property).

2.2 The said respondents No.1 and 2 executed an agreement to sale in favour of the appellant on 03.12.2015, which was registered on 04.12.2015. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which Rs.14,00,000/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement of sale and the remaining Rs.1,00,000/- was agreed to be paid on the date of execution of the sale deed.

2.3 It was further averred in the plaint that it was agreed between the parties that the remaining amount would be paid on 05.01.2016 and the sale deed would also be executed on the same date. However, despite repeated requests by the plaintiff, respondents No.1 and 2 neither received the remaining amount nor executed the sale deed. Consequently, a notice was sent through counsel for their presence at the office of the Registrar, Ujjain on 04.01.2016 for execution of sale deed. When they did not appear, the appellant again went on 05.01.2016 bringing the remaining amount of the sale consideration. However, respondents No.1 and 2 did not turn up on that date either.

2.4 Respondents No.1 and 2 on 06.01.2016 sent a reply to the notice of the plaintiff and denied the execution of the agreement. In such circumstances, the suit was filed by the plaintiff / appellate before the trial Court.

2.5 Defendants / respondents No.1 and 2 filed their written statement, wherein they not only denied the execution of the agreement of sale but also contended that the suit property is joint ancestral property in which their sister in law, Leelabai w/o Motiram and their sister, Leelabai w/o Mangilal also have a share.

2.6 It was further averred in the written statement that the agreement to sale was without any consideration and was executed by playing fraud.

2.7 Learned trial Court framed as many as five issues, out of which issues No.1 to 3 were decided in favour of the plaintiff / appellant. However, issues No.4 and 5 were decided against her.

2.8 Respondents No.1 and 2, on 19.12.2016 filed an application before the learned trial Court under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC for framing of additional issues in respect of the averments made in their written statement. However, learned trial Court rejected the said application vide order dated 10.01.2019 with a cost of Rs.500/-.

2.9 Learned trial Court found that the agreement had been executed.

However, as per the findings recorded in para 12 of the judgment and decree, the Court also held that the suit property was not exclusively owned or possessed by respondents No.1 and 2.

2.10 The suit property is ancestral in nature, in which the widow of Motiram namely Leelabai and the widow of Mangilal named Leelabai were joint holders of title and possession. Since these two women were not made partie