IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN

th

ON THE 9 OF DECEMBER, 2025 FIRST APPEAL No. 609 of 2009 SMT. MANJU THAKUR AND OTHERS Versus RAJKUMAR THAKUR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Surendra Verma - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Vaibhav Dharpure - Advocate for the respondent.

Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey - Dy. Government Advocate for the respondents No.7 and 8/ State.

Heard on : 18.09.2025 Pronounced on : 09.12.2025 JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2006 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Chhindwara in RCS No.13-A/2006, whereby the appellants' suit was dismissed.

2. The admitted facts in the case are that plaintiff /appellant No.1 is a widow of late Sushil Kumar, who is one of the son of original defendant No.2 Mohan Singh. Appellant No.2/plaintiff is a daughter born out of wedlock of plaintiff/appellant No.1 and Sushil Kumar. Respondent No.6 is mother-in-law, respondents No.1, 4 and 5 are brother-in-law and respondents No.2 and 3 are sister-in-law of the appellant No.1/plaintiff. The plaintiff/appellant's No.1 husband died in a road accident on 07.06.1995 within 5 years of appellant's No.1 marriage. At the time of death of Sushil Kumar, appellant No. 2 was about only one year old.

3. Short facts of the case are that the sudden death of plaintiff's No. 1 husband at a young age caused immense grief to plaintiff Manju Thakur. Her mental condition has not been proper. Even during her husband's lifetime her father-in-law, Mohan Singh, her brother-in-law Rajkumar did not behave very well with the plaintiff No. 1 and her husband. A few days after her husband's death, defendant No. 1 and the deceased defendant No. 2 told plaintiff No. 1 that they had to file a claim and take other actions regarding death of Sushil Kumar. Therefore, plaintiff No.1 should write a power of attorney so that there would be no difficulty in the proceeding. Plaintiff No.1 is illiterate and was in a state of shock at the time. She kept doing as told by her father-in-law and brother-in-law, deceased defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 1. She had no idea what was being written in the documents.

4. A few days after the execution of the Power of Attorney, the behaviour of the defendants towards her became even more cruel. Three and a quarter months after the death of the husband of plaintiff No. 1, plaintiff's No. 1 father-in-law and brother-in-law told plaintiff No. 1 that she would have to go to the bank. They took her to Canara Bank in Nagpur, deposited some money, and opened an account. She was told that when her husband Sushil Kumar's insurance money, etc. would be received, it would be deposited into this account. After returning home, they took the cheque book and obtained signatures from plaintiff No.1, so that plaintiff No. 1 need not to go to the bank again and again. At that time, her mental condition was not such that she could disobey them. After that, the behaviour of plaintiff's No. 1 mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law at her in-laws house became more cruel and they started taunting her and said that it was because of her that her husband Sushil Kumar had died. Due to excessive harassment, plaintiff No. 1 started living in her maternal home in Berdi with plaintiff No.

2.

5. After this, plaintiff No. 1 contacted a lawyer and asked to obtain a copy of the Power of Attorney. She came to know that the Power of Attorney that plaintiff No. 1 had obtained to conduct proceedings related to the accident had been used in exercising the right to sell the property of plaintiff No. 1. Thus, the power of attorney was fraudulently executed. A few days after the Power of Attorney was executed, the defendant No. 1, through a registered sale deed dated 23-8-95 sold the land Khasra No. 4/2 measuring 0.65 decimal situated in Mauja Imlikheda, Bandobast No.6, Patwari Halka No.33/20, Revenue Circle Division, Chhindwara, Tehsi