##PAGE1##

1 FA-201-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

FA No. 201 of 2026

(AQEEL AHMED AND OTHERS Vs DR IQBAL NAGAR NIGAM SAHKARI SANSTHA AND OTHERS )

Dated : 04-02-2026

Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Avinash Zargar -

Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Shobha Menon - Senior Advocate with Shri Ajhar Hasan Khan -

Advocate for respondent No.1/Caveator.

Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Arpit Agrawal -

Advocate for the respondents No.9 to 12/Caveator.

Heard on I.A. No.2180/2026, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 &

2 of CPC.

The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal against the

judgment and decree dated 31.12.2025 passed by 14th District Judge, Bhopal

in Civil Suit No.RCA No.1500176/2023.

Brief facts of the case are that the father of the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 was

a renowned poet (Shayer) of Bhopal. His father was Kiledar in the Nawabi

regime. Pleased with the services of Wakil Ahmed, father of plaintiffs No.1

to 5, then then Nawab of Bhopal Haji Mohammed Hamidullah Khan granted

the disputed land Khasra No.114, ad measuring 16.62 acres by way of

Inyatnama. The entry of Inyatnama find mention in the Registrar Arajiyat

Maafi Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal. Name of Wakil Khan was entered in

the the Hukuk Register and after the merger of Bhopal in 1955, as per the

order of the Under Secretary, Revenue Department, Wakil Ahmed's name

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA

SEN

Signing time: 06-02-2026

17:50:10

2 FA-201-2026

was entered in the mutation register. Wakil Ahmed died on 16.08.1994.

After his death, plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are in possession of the disputed land.

On 23.12.1998, a public notice was published in news paper in Bhopal

on behalf of defendant No.6 that defendant No.3 and 5 have sold 12.62 acres

of the disputed land to defendant No.1 claiming the said land to be the

property of his mother, late Sajda Sultan and filed a suit for partition and

declaration of ownership against defendant No.1 and 5 in which they filed a

compromise dated 04.08.2000 and divided the land amongst themselves.

Plaintiffs filed an application under Section 115 and 116 of MPLRC before

the Settlement Officer on 05.08.1998 for registering their names. Therefore,

the appellants have filed suit for declaration of title and possession,

permanent injunction and for declaring the compromise application dated

23.11.2018; sale deed dated 24.10.1998 and judgment and decree dated

04.08.2000 as null and void. It was pleaded in the plaint that sale deed dated

24.10.1998 executed by defendants 3 to 5 in favor of defendant 1 is null

&void. It was also pleaded that the compromise dated 04.08.2000 in between

defendants 2, 4 to 6 and defendant 1 is illegal & not binding on the plaintiffs.

It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant that the

impugned judgment and decree is perverse as the same has been passed by

misreading the oral and documentary evidence on record. The Court below

has grossly erred in disbelieving Ex.P/1, Nakal Register Arijiyat Mafi and

Ex.P/2, Register Hukook. The finding recorded by the court below that in the

year 1936, age of Wakeel Ahmed was only 06 years is contrary to the oral &

documentary evidence on record. The aforesaid finding is merely based on

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA

SEN

Signing time: 06-02-2026

17:50:10

3 FA-201-2026

copy of voter card. The finding recorded by the court below with regard to

Ex.P/4 to P/11 as forged documents is not based on any evidence. The trial

Court has glossed over the fact that the original Inyatnama was not available

but the same finds mention in various revenue documents viz. Ex.P/1 to

Ex.P/3 which establishes the title of the plaintiffs over the suit lands as the

same contains recital with regard to execution of Inayatnama in favour of

Wakeel Ahmed. The trial Court has also erred in observing that the plaintiffs

were not given any compensation on account of acquisition of portion of the

suit lands. The trial Court has also not taken into consider