##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3708

1 FA-294-2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI

th

ON THE 4 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

FIRST APPEAL No. 294 of 2014

NARESH KUMAR

Versus

CHANDRASHEKHAR

Appearance:

Shri Brajesh Kumar Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Vishal Baheti, learned senior counsel with Ms. Archana

Maheshwari and Shri Siddharth Kulkarni, learned counsel for the

respondent.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the

judgment and decree dated 9.12.2013 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit

No.82-A/2010, whereby suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed and the

appellant is directed to handover vacant possession of the suit property to the

plaintiff.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession. It

was stated in the plaint that a plot No.141 situated in Silver Oaks Colony,

Indore was purchased by him by self earned money vide registered sale deed

dated 12.7.1990. The plaintiff/respondent further averred that he constructed

a residential house on the said plot consisting six rooms on the ground floor

and a hall on the first floor out of his own money. It was further averred that

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL

Signing time: 2/9/2026

1:14:12 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3708

2 FA-294-2014

plaintiff was in possession of two rooms at ground floor and hall at first

floor, remaining four rooms, toilet and bathroom are in possession of the

defendant in which he was residing with the permission of the plaintiff. This

part of the said residential house is termed as suit property in the case.

2.1 The plaintiff further stated in the plaint that despite several oral

requests the defendant did not handover vacant possession of the suit

property to him. Thus, he sent notice by registered post through his counsel

on 31.7.2010 to the defendant, thereby asking him to handover vacant

possession of the suit property. Thus, it is submitted that permission was

terminated on the date of such notice. However, the defendant replied

through his counsel by stating that the suit property is a HUF property in

which defendant is also having his share.

2.2 The appellant/defendant filed his written statement to the

averments of plaint in complete denial. It was stated in the written statement

that the plaintiff is not owner and title holder, nor in possession of the suit

property. The plot was not purchased by him. It was further averred that in

fact a house No.105 was situated in Vrindavan Colony, which was of the

ownership of father of the defendant, which was sold by defendant and his

mother on the advise of plaintiff and Mohanlal and one Ghanshyam. At the

time of said transaction defendant was 22 years of age. It was further averred

that as the father of the defendant and plaintiff were members of the joint

Hindu family, thus on the advise of both of his uncles (plaintiff and

Mohanlal) he sold the aforesaid house of his father as it was decided amongst

the members of HUF that out of the sale proceeds of that house 2-3 plots will

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL

Signing time: 2/9/2026

1:14:12 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3708

3 FA-294-2014

be purchased. However, both of his uncles have purchased plot No.140 and

141 in their respective names, when the defendant came to know about this

fact he objected for the same. However, they stated that on both the plots all

the three families will reside. It was further stated in written statement that

defendant is residing in the plot, which was purchased in the name of

Chandra Shekhar i.e. plot No.141 and in the house constructed on plot

No.140 other uncle of the defendant namely; Mohanlal is residing. Based on

the pleadings of respective parties the trial Court framed as many as five

issues, out of which two issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and the

suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff holding that the house constructed

on plot No.141 is not part o