IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN ON THE 12^th OF DECEMBER, 2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. 77 of 2017 KU. RASHMI AWASTHI Versus SUBHASH CHANDRA KESARWANI AND ANOTHER …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......................

Appearance Shri Atulanand Awasthi- Senior Advocate with Shri Praveen Kumar Mishra and Shri Roopesh Singh Thakur– Advocates for the appellant.

Shri Amitabh Gupta – Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Shri Sanjay Agrawal– Senior Advocate with Ms. Neerja Agrawal –

Advocate for the LRs’ of respondent No.2.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......................

Heard on : 16.09.2025 Pronounced on : 12.12.2025 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......................

JUDGMENT

Since pleadings are complete, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. By the instant appeal filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellant is challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 18.01.2017 passed in M.J.C. No.102/2014 by learned 18^th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur whereby the application under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the appellant has been rejected.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as under:-

(3.1) The appellant filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. before 18^th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur for obstructing by the execution proceedings pending in Execution Case No.101/2016 against the respondents no.1 and 2 in which the appellant’s share in the ancestral disputed property exists.

(3.2) One Late Phoola Bai was the owner of vast immovable properties which included the disputed property. Late Phoola Bai was pre-deceased by her only daughter Late Shanti Bai, who had four sons namely Yogesh Kumar, Virendra Kumar, Narendra Kumar and Devendra Kumar. The appellant is unmarried daughter of the respondent No.2 and Virendra Kumar, Narendra Kumar and Devendra Kumar are the real three uncles of the appellant. The four sons of Late Shanti Bai filed an application before the Tahsildar for division of the joint lands held by them after the death of their mother. The application for partition of holding was filed by one of the sons namely Narendra Kumar and by an order, the Tahsildar partitioned the joint holding of all the four brothers and the entire land of 10 acres held by Late Smt. Phoola Bai was divided amongst the four brothers. The said land after the death of Smt. Phoola Bai did not come into the name of late Shri Devi Prasad Awasthy and Smt. Shanti Bai because both of them died before Smt. Phoola Bai and only her name was entered in the entire revenue record, being the owner of the property. Shanti Bai, the only daughter of Smt. Phoola Bai and the above mentioned are her four sons. The respondent No 2 got partitioned the entire properties with his younger three brothers through the revenue court. The names were mutated in the revenue records. The disputed land bearing Khasra No. 65 (old Kh No. 49/3), area 0.83 hectares, Mouza Regwa, Tahsil and District Jabalpur came into the share of respondent No 2. Shri Yogesh Kumar thereafter entered into an agreement on 13.03.1995 to sell the said land to respondent No 1 @ Rs 1.50 lacs per acre of the land. When as per the condition of agreement, the respondent No.1 did not pay the amount then respondent No 2 denied to execute a sale deed. As soon as the appellant came to know about the said agreement, the appellant gave notice to the respondent No l through her counsel and also published public notice in the daily news paper. No reply was ever received by the appellant of the said notice.

(3.3) The respondent No.1, without impleading the appellant as necessary party, instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract before the court below against the respondent No 2. Further,