IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

SECOND APPEAL No. 429 of 2023

VIMAL KUMAR

Versus

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Sunil Kumar Jain - Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.S. Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for the State.

Reserved on: 16/12/2025

Pronounced on: 13/01/2026

JUDGMENT Jain, who were residents of Piprai. Lakhmi Chand has expired on 14/8/1996, whereas Kapur Chand has expired on 30/6/1987. Plaintiff No. 1 is the widow of Kapur Chand, and plaintiff No. 27 / respondent No. 35 is the widow of Lakhmi Chand, whereas plaintiff No. 2 / appellant and plaintiff Nos. 3 to 7 / respondent Nos. 14, 15, 11, 12, 13 are the sons of late Kapur Chand, whereas plaintiff Nos. 13 to 16 / respondent Nos. 21 to 24 are the daughters of late Kapur Chand. It was mentioned that two more sons, Vijay Kumar and Anil Kumar, have expired. Anil had expired on 22/4/1996, whereas date of death of Vijay Kumar is not known to plaintiffs. Plaintiff Nos. 8, 9, and 10 / respondent Nos. 16, 17, and 18 are the legal representatives of late Vijay Kumar, whereas plaintiff Nos. 11 and 12 / respondent Nos. 19 and 20 are the legal representatives of late Anil Kumar. Plaintiff Nos. 17 to 23 / respondent Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 are the sons of late Lakhmi Chand, whereas plaintiff Nos. 24 to 26 / respondent Nos. 32, 33, and 34 are the daughters of Lakhmi Chand. Plaintiff No. 10 / respondent No. 18 and plaintiff No. 12 / respondent No. 20 were minor at the time of institution of the suit, therefore, they were represented through their guardians. It was claimed that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 / respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are father and son. Remaining defendants/respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are close associates of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and are powerful persons. They had enmity with the plaintiffs, and they were out and out to cause loss to plaintiffs. It was claimed that Survey No. 661, area 1.672 hectares, was jointly recorded in the name of Lakhmi Chand, Vijay Kumar, Anil Kumar, and Ramnath (who was the father of defendant No. 8), and they had one-third share each. However, plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4, with the consent of remaining plaintiffs, were in exclusive possession of the property in dispute. It is claimed that Lakhmi Chand and Kapur Chand had purchased the aforesaid property by entering into an agreement to sell with Satru Lal on 5/11/1961. Satru Lal was granted patta by order dated 26/7/1961 passed by Naib Tahsildar, Mungawali, and accordingly, name of Satru Lal was recorded in the revenue records. Later on, by a registered sale deed dated 19/3/1964, which was executed in compliance of the agreement to sell, names of Lakhmi Chand and Kapur Chand were also recorded in the revenue records. Although in the agreement to sell as well as in the registered sale deed, Ramnath Shrivastava was also shown as one of the purchasers, whereas the land was in fact purchased by Lakhmi Chand and Kapur Chand only. In a family partition, entire property was given to Kapur Chand, and he remained in possession during his lifetime, and after his death, plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are in peaceful possession being the legal representatives of Kapur Chand and at present, names of late Lakhmi Chand, late Vijay Kumar, late Anil Kumar and late Ramnath are recorded in the revenue records which is incorrect and is being challenged by plaintiffs. It is the case of plaintiffs that the land bearing Survey Nos. 659/1 and 666/5, total area 1.166 hectares, belonging to defendant Nos. 1 and 2, is adjoining to the land in dispute. Since the aforesaid land is situated nearer to the abadi, therefore, defendants are trying to develop small plots and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have also alienated some plots to some persons, but disintention of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is that although they are executing sale deeds in respect of their own land, but they are giving possession of the land belonging to plaintiffs. Since plaintiffs are resisting such an act of defendant