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

nd

ON THE 2 OF DECEMBER, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 2008 of 2022 SATISH KUMAR RAWAT AND OTHERS Versus JAGDISH RAWAT AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rohit Bansal - Advocate for appellants.

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Ms. Neha Bhadoriya - Proxy counsel for respondent No.2, on behalf of Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate.

Shri S.S. Kushwah - Government Advocate for the State.

ORDER

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2022 passed by Third District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No.41/2017 as well as the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017 passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class 1, Guna in Civil Suit No.36-A/2015.

3. The appellants are the plaintiffs who had lost their case from both the Courts below. The original plaintiff Gulab Bai died during the pendency of suit, and accordingly her legal representatives were brought on record and present appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of original plaintiff.

4. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that, according to the plaintiff, the family tree is as under :

PANNALAL (Dead) RADHAKISHAN | |

GULAB BAI (widow)

(Original Plaintiff) |

| ┌─────┴──────┐

| Ramesh Kumar Narendra ┌─────┼─────┐

Radheshyam Jagdish Satish

5. According to plaintiff herself, defendants No.1 & 2 are the sons of plaintiff whereas defendant No.3 is the brother-in-law (devar) of the plaintiff. Pannalal and Radhakishan were the members of Joint Hindu Family and accordingly they had purchased four houses in the names of their family members and also operated three shops for sale of utensils. In village Bajranggarh and Kusamoda, agricultural lands were purchased and a factory was operated in industrial area. Pannalal expired in the year 1996. After the death of Pannalal and due to the expansion of family, property dispute started taking place. Accordingly, the members of the family settled their disputes from time to time. Now, there is no dispute amongst family members with regard to houses and shops and they are in possession of their share. The only dispute is with regard to agricultural land bearing survey No. 350, 5 area 3.135 hectares situated in village in village Kusmoda and 7 bigha & 10 biswa is the dispute property. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 25/11/1997, the utensil factory, disputed agricultural lands and 53 bigha of land situated in Bajrangarh remained to be settled, and accordingly, it was settled. The utensil factory is situated in Guna & is in the name of Radhakishan Metal Industries. It has four partners, namely Pannalal, Jagdish, Ramesh and Narendra. After the death of Pannalal, the partnership came to an end, and the factory remained in the control of Jagdish. Since the factory was yielding profit, therefore Jagdish by operating the factory decided to give 26½ and 26½ bigha of land situated in village Bajrangarh to legal representatives of Radhakishan and Pannalal. The disputed property situated in Kusmoda was in the name of Jagdish and Ramesh, out of which half of the land, i.e. 7 bigha 10 biswa of land, was given to Ramesh, and the remaining 7 bigha 10 biswa was given to the plaintiff. A family settlement deed dated 25/11/1997 was also executed, and thumb impression of plaintiff was taken. All the three brothers, namely Jagdish, Radheshyam and Satish, also signed the family settlement, and then the eldest member, Radhakishan, also put his signatures. The family settlement was actually executed, and the parties took possession. Accordingly, plaintiff is in possession of her share of 7 bigha and 10 biswa of agricultural land situated in Kusmoda. Since defendant No.3, Ramesh had got half of the land situated in village Kusmoda, therefore, defendant No.1 under the instigation of defendant No.3 Ramesh, started claiming that since remaining half of the land which is i