IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

rd

ON THE 3 OF DECEMBER, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 653 of 2009 KUBERSINGH AND OTHERS Versus KAPOOR SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri D.P.Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Nikhil Rai, Proxy counsel on behalf of counsel for respondent No.1.

ORDER This second appeal, under section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10/8/2009 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Bhind in Civil Appeal No. 10/09 by which the judgment and decree dated 20/12/2008 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Mehgaon, District Bhind, in Civil Suit No. 37A/2008 has been reversed.

2. The present appeal has been filed by defendants, who have lost their case from the first appellate Court.

3. Respondent No. 1/ plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of Survey No. 918, area 0.554 hectare, situated in Bharolikala, Tahsil Mehgaon, District Bhind, on the ground that plaintiff had purchased the said land from Sube Singh and Balwant Singh by a registered sale deed dated

02.02.2001 and even today plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the same. The Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat by passing a resolution is trying to construct a road and defendants are forcibly trying to construct the road, whereas neither the land has been acquired nor disputed property is a Government land and, thus, defendants have no right or title to construct the road over the land belonging to plaintiff. Therefore, the civil suit was filed for permanent injunction.

4. Defendant No. 8 did not file any written statement.

5. Defendant No. 1, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bharolikala, admitted the claim of plaintiff and claimed that no resolution has been passed for construction of road. Government road was never in existence on the disputed land.

6. Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 filed their written statement and claimed that earlier the disputed property was a pond and it was being used by villagers for public purposes and on one side of the pond there was a main road for going to the village which was also being used as a public road by the villagers. Since the property in dispute was a pond, therefore, plaintiff has no right or title in the same. Balwant, Subedar Singh, Rajveer Singh etc., who have sold the property to plaintiff, had no right or title to alienate the same and, accordingly, plaintiff has no right or title on the land in dispute. Gram Panchayat and the Government is reconstructing the road over the old existing road which is being objected by the plaintiff without any basis. The plaintiff should have issued a notice but the suit has been filed without issuing a notice under Section 80 of CPC. In a proceeding initiated under Section 248 of MPLRC, SDM Mehgaon has already directed plaintiff to remove his encroachment, failing which he has been directed to be sent to Civil Jail. Accordingly, it is claimed that suit has been filed without any right or title.

7. The trial court, after framing the issues and recording evidence, dismissed the suit however, held that plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the property in dispute. It was also held that plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction by holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendants have tried to interfere with his possession.

8. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree and the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed. 9. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that since the suit was filed simpliciter for permanent injunction, therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable, as the title of plaintiff was disputed. Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to prove that his vendors had any right or title in the property. Even otherwise, by relying upon Section 57 as well as Sec