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

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 895 of 2019 LALPATI AND OTHERS Versus OMPRAKASH Appearance:

Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma- Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against judgment and decree dated 20/12/2018 passed by First Additional District Judge, Sabalgarh, District, Morena in Regular Civil Appeal No.680/2016, by which judgment and decree dated 08/09/2016 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Sabalgarh, District, Morena in Civil Suit No.57-A/2014 has been reversed, and the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff has been partially decreed.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction. It was his case that he is the owner and in possession of Survey No.125, area 5 Bigha 15 Biswa situated in village Katghar, Tehsil Sabalgarh, District, Morena, and the said property was described as disputed property. It was further claimed that the property in dispute is recorded in his name in the revenue record also.

Earlier, the predecessors of defendants/appellants, namely Ratanlal etc. had filed a civil suit No.49-A/2003 against plaintiff on 25/07/1997, which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 25/11/2004. The judgment passed by trial Court was challenged by the predecessors of appellants by filing Civil Appeal No.23-A/2004, which too was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 29/01/2009. The judgment passed by Appellate Court was also assailed by the predecessors of appellants by filing Second Appeal No.366/2009, which too was dismissed by order dated 17/06/2014, and accordingly, it was claimed that the ownership and possession of plaintiff was upheld. It was claimed that the predecessors of appellants were not found to be in possession or having any title. The defendants/appellants are not happy with judgment passed in a suit instituted by their predecessors, therefore, they are trying to harass the plaintiff and are trying to dispossess him, whereas defendants/appellants have no right or title in the property in dispute. It was further pleaded that on four Bighas of land, the crop of mustard is standing, whereas one Bigha and fifteen Biswa of land, which is on the eastern side, is lying vacant. On 25/11/2014, when plaintiff was looking after his standing crop, then defendants/appellants came on the suit land and started abusing the plaintiff by using abusive language. When, it was objected by plaintiff, then defendants/appellants challenged that they would not allow plaintiff to carry out the cultivation work, and they would dispossess him. When, plaintiff objected to the acts of defendants/appellants, then defendants started digging foundation over 20 x 40 sq.ft. of land. When, it was objected by plaintiff, then the defendants stopped digging the foundation, but they extended a threat that they would construct a hut. Again on 26/11/2014, defendants/appellants came on disputed land and started digging foundation over 20 ft. wide land. When it was objected by plaintiff, then defendants did not stop and they started digging the foundation. Defendants belongs to a reserved category and on earlier occasion also, they had got a forged and false case registered against plaintiff under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as well as under Section 376 of IPC. By hook and crook defendant/appellants want to dispossess the plaintiff and without any order by the Court, they are not ready to listen to plaintiff, and accordingly, the suit was filed for permanent injunction to the effect that defendants/appellants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from Survey No.125 as well as from raising construction or digging foundation over the suit land.

3. The defendants filed their written statement and cl