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

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 FIRST APPEAL No. 261 of 2004 HARCHARAN SINGH & ORS. AND OTHERS Versus PHOOLWATI & ORS. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri K.N. Gupta - Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Santosh Agrawal, Shri Ankur Maheshwari, and Sushri Suhani Dhariwal - Advocates for appellants.

Shri Ajay Chaturvedi - Proxy Counsel on behalf of Shri C.R. Roman - Advocate for LRs. of respondent No. 1.

None for respondents No. 2(a) and 2(d).

Shri Saket Sharma - Advocate for respondents No. 2(b) and 2(c). Shri Parth Dixit - Advocate for respondents No. 6, 7, and 9 to 12.

WITH FIRST APPEAL No. 276 of 2004 KARTAR KAUR AND ORS.(DELETED) AND OTHERS Versus PHOOLWATI AND ORS. THROUGH LRS (A) SIYARAM AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Parth Dixit - Advocate for appellants.

Shri Ajay Chaturvedi - Proxy Counsel on behalf of Shri C.R. Roman - Advocate for LRs. of respondent No. 1.

Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for respondents No. 6 and 7.

JUDGMENT By this common judgment, First Appeal Nos. 261/2004 and 276/2004 shall be decided.

2. First Appeal No. 261/2004 has been filed by plaintiffs, whereas First Appeal No. 276/2004 has been filed by some of the defendants. Since the claim of appellants of both the cases is same, therefore, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Both the appeals have been filed against judgment and decree dated th

31/07/2004 passed by 8 Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 48A/1992, by which suit was partly decreed for permanent injunction, thereby protecting the possession of plaintiffs, but the suit for specific performance of contract was dismissed. Therefore, these appeals have been filed against the dismissal of suit for specific performance of contract.

4. It is not out of place to mention here that while granting the decree of permanent injunction, it has been observed that plaintiffs shall not be dispossessed without following due procedure of law.

5. Original plaintiff is Labh Singh, who died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record, and the appeal is being prosecuted by some of the legal representatives of Labh Singh, whereas defendant Nos. 4, 11 and 12 are the widow and some of the children of late Labh Singh, and defendant Nos. 5 to 10 are the wife of Guruvachan Singh and her children.

6. The facts necessary for disposal of both the appeals, in short, are that a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction was filed in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 355, 357, 402, 419, 421, 424/1, 424/2, 424/3, 404/1, 404/2, 606, 409/1/2, 409/6, 409/7, 425/1, 425/2, 425/3, 425/4, 425/5, 425/6, 428/1, 428/2, 434/1, 434/2, 1040 and 1108, situated in village Jigsauli, Tehsil and District Gwalior. It is the case of plaintiffs that village Jigsauli was a zamindari area and Mahavir Prasad Saxena was the Zamindar. Original plaintiff was cultivating the land from the year 1960 on behalf of Mahavir Prasad. On 13/11/1963, Mulua and Devkinandan purchased the aforesaid land as well as Survey Nos. 555, 556, 557, 1110 and 1111 (these are not the disputed properties) from Mahavir Prasad Saxena for a consideration amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,000/- was taken by Mulua and Devkinandan from original plaintiff Labh Singh, and possession of the disputed land was also given to plaintiff on the ground that he can cultivate the same and use it for himself. It was further agreed that in case if Mulua and Devkinandan fail to return the amount within a period of three years, then for the aforesaid consideration amount, they would execute a sale deed in favour of plaintiff. When Mulua and Devkinandan could not repay the amount, then original plaintiff requested Mulua and Devkinandan to execute the sale deed, and accordingly, Mulua and Devkinandan took back the agreement to sell and prepared the draft of the sale deed. Devkinandan signed the draft of