IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI

SECOND APPEAL No. 1036 of 2025

SANTOSH AND OTHERS

Versus

KAMATA PRASAD

Appearance:

Ms. Megha Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.

Reserved on : 20.11.2025 Pronounced on : 15.01.2026

ORDER claimed to be owner and in possession of the property in question. The property in question has been purchased by the respondent from previous owner Shri Kailash Chandra vide registered sale deed dated 02.08.2013 and since then the respondent is in possession of property in question and residing there with his family. The said house was left open by the respondent for drainage of rainwater of the house (4' X 30') area is being referred to as a disputed land in the suit. The appellants/defendants wanted to illegally occupy the said disputed land and are trying to construct on it for which, they have constructed beam column on the spot and when the respondent stopped them, they have refused for the same.

Heard on the question of admission.

2] This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908

(for brevity "CPC") has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2025, passed by learned Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Tarana, District Ujjain in Regular Civil Appeal No. 19/2024, reversing the findings the Judgment and decree dated 27.07.2024, passed by First Civil Judge, Junior Division, District Ujjain in Civil Suit No. RCS/61A/2022 wherein the Trial Court has decreed in favour of

respondent/plaintiff.

3] The facts of the present case are that the respondent/plaintiff have filed

a civil suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction with respect to the residential H.No. 127 area 1800 sq.ft. situated at Village - Nainavad, Gram Panchayat, Nainavad, Tehsil Tarana, District Ujjain. In the plaint, the respondent

4 ] The appellants have submitted their written statement and denied all averments made in the plaint.

5 ] The appellants/defendants also filed a Counter-Claim stating that the House No. 118 situated at Village Nainavad, Tehsil Tarana, District - Ujjain having with 29 feet and length 49 feet stating that the land owned by the defendants, wherein a request was made for grant the relief of permanent injunction.

6] Learned Trial Court framed the issues and after recording the evidence of both the parties, rejected the suit filed by the respondent and also rejected the counter claim filled by the appellants/defendants by judgment and decree.

7] Thereafter, respondent/plaintiff filed first appeal before District Judge, Ujjain. Learned First Appellate Court by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, has allowed by passing impugned judgment and decree dated 10.02.2025. Against which, present petition has been filed.

8 ] It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court is wrong, illegal and against the facts on record. Learned First Appellate Court has wrongly allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment passed by the trial Court on the ground that the defendant failed to produce the documents nor any evidence has been submitted that apart from 30X56 sq.ft. of land of plaintiff, the remaining 4 feet of land does not belong to respondent/plaintiff and the appellants/defendants have not submitted any document proving the ownership of their own title and possession of the land in question. The learned Appellate Court failed to consider that the failure of defendant to present a strong defence does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree and also failed to consider the panchnama (Ex.P/5) wherein it is mentioned that the demarcation of plaintiff's house was done in which area of 30X56 sq.ft.

9] Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that the Appellate Court erred in ignoring the cross examination of Ritesh Yadav (PW-2) where he has stated that he does not know the