IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI SECOND APPEAL No. 11 of 2025 LATE SHRI MOHAN GURJER THROUGH LRS GOPAL AND OTHER Versus SARITA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri V.A.Katkani – Advocate for the appellant/defendants.

Shri Vibhor Khandelwal - Advocate for the respondent No.1 &

2/plaintiffs.

Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - Government Advocate for the respondent No.3/State Reserved on : 08/10/2025 Delivered on : 16/10/2025 ======================================================

J U D G M E N T

Heard on the question of admission This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06/12/2024 passed by Principal District Judge, Ratlam, District- Ratlam (M.P.) in RCA No.36/2022, whereby the judgment and decree dated 29/06/2022 passed by 1^st Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratlam, District-Ratlam (M.P.) in RCS-A /2500021/2015, was affirmed.

Facts of the case, in short are as under :-

2. The respondents/plaintiffs had filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title, declaratory and permanent injunctions and possession concerning the agricultural land bearing Survey No.220/1 admeasuring 0.600 hectare situated in Village-Palsodi, Tehsil and District-Ratlam.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs contended that the Plaintiff No.1 was the daughter-in-law of Plaintiff No.2 who resided with her after the demise of her husband (Vinod Kumar) on 04/04/2011. It was alleged that the defendants, namely Mohan (Defendant No. 1), Dashrath (Defendant No.2, son of Mohan), and Bagdibai (Defendant No.3, daughter of Mohan), had extended their house eastward and encroached upon the plaintiffs’ land by constructing a mud wall and later a new wall within the boundary of Survey No.220/1. The plaintiffs claimed that despite objections and directions by the Tehsildar to prohibit construction pending demarcation, the defendants continued to build the wall and further obstructed the plaintiffs’ use of the land by denying access and damaging crops. It was further contended that allegations were also made regarding physical assault and threats against the plaintiffs’ family when they resisted the defendants’ encroachment.

4. The appellants/defendants, in their written statement, denied the allegations except the admitted facts and contended that the house, wall, and path in question had been in their family’s possession for over a hundred years. They claimed that the new wall was constructed only after the old one had collapsed and that the plaintiffs were attempting to block their passage and harass them through false litigation motivated by malice and enmity. It was further contended that a violent altercation had occurred during the dispute, resulting in serious injuries and even the death of a relative of Defendant No.1, for which a police report had been lodged. The defendants therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit with special damages, denying any encroachment or illegality on their part.

5. The learned Trial Court after considering the material placed on record and evaluating the evidence of both parties found that the plaintiffs had established their ownership and possession over the disputed land. The learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, declaring Plaintiff No.1 as the owner and occupant of the disputed property. The defendants were permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession, and were directed to remove the encroachment shown in Exhibit C-2, failing which the Government was directed to remove it in accordance with law and recover expenses from the defendants.

6. Being aggrieved by this judgement and decree, the appellants/defendants preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, which, after due consideration, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

7. Being aggrieved by which, the appellants/defendants preferred the present second