IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

SECOND APPEAL No. 1343 of 2025

BASANTIBAI BEWA AND OTHERS

Versus

RADHESHYAM

Appearance:

Ms. Nivedita Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Reserved on : 24.11.2025 Pronounced on : 15.01.2026

ORDER residential house was acquired by the Government, treating him as a displaced person. In the year 2008, the respondent/plaintiff raised construction on a portion of the western side of the plot, leaving the remaining eastern portion vacant. Subsequently, during the year 2009–10, further construction was raised on the eastern portion of the plot.

Heard on the question of admission.

2. This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (for

brevity, CPC), 1908 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2025, passed by the Ist District Judge, District Badwani in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11/2024, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 11.04.2023, passed by learned First Civil Judge, Junior Division, District Badwani in Civil Suit No. RCS-A/22/2019 wherein the Trial Court has decreed the plaintiff/respondent suit for declaring the plaintiff/respondent as owner of the

suit property.

3 . Necessary facts for disposal of this appeal, in brief are that t he

respondent/plaintiff was allotted Plot No. 12 admeasuring 5400 sq. ft. at Village Aavali by the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer after his

4 . The appellants/defendants are close relatives of the respondent/plaintiff. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the appellants/defendants were permitted to occupy the eastern portion of the house in April 2018 only for the purpose of performing the marriage ceremony of appellant/defendant No. 2, on the assurance that possession would be handed back after the ceremony. However, despite the marriage being solemnized on 14.04.2018, the appellants/defendants allegedly failed to vacate the premises.

5 . The respondent/plaintiff claimed that the said permission was a license which was revoked by legal notice dated 25.06.2019. As the appellants/defendants did not vacate the disputed portion even thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking possession of the disputed house along with compensation.

6 . The appellants/defendants contested the suit by denying the allegation of permissive possession and pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff had, due to financial need, sold the eastern portion of the plot to the husband of appellant/defendant No. 1 under an agreement to sale dated 10.02.2009 for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. It was further pleaded that after execution of the said agreement, the purchaser constructed a tin shed and remained in possession along with his family. After his death in the year 2013, the appellants/defendants continued in possession, raised permanent construction, obtained electricity connection in their own names, and resided peacefully without objection for several years.

7. It was further pleaded that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was barred by limitation, undervalued, and not maintainable, and that the respondent/plaintiff had no right to seek possession after remaining silent for several years despite the appellants’ open and continuous possession.

8. The learned Trial Court, by judgment dated 11.04.2023, partially decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants/defendants preferred a first appeal, Civil Regular Appeal No. 11/2024. The First Appellate Court, by judgment dated 11.03.2025, dismissed the appeal, held the agreement dated 10.02.2009 to be inadmissible for want of registration and proper stamping, and affirmed the findings of the Trial Court.

9. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings and judgments passed by the Courts below, the appellants/defendants have preferred the present Second Appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings of the learned Courts below were incorrect in the eyes o