IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 10 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 4083 of 2021 SMT. LEELA DEVI DAHA AND OTHERS Versus SUBHASH TIWARI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Saurabh Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Anuj Singh - P.L. for the State.

Shri Anurag Tiwari - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2020 passed by the Appellate Court, whereby confirming the order of the trial Court in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner plaintiff in the matter of temporary injunction resultantly denial of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiffs.

2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs are mother and son and it has been stated that the plaintiffs have purchased portion of land in Survey No.148/6, which is owned by him, but the defendants have been asserting that the land actually falls within Survey No.145/4 and on the said assertion the defendants are trying to interfere in the possession of the present petitioners. Therefore, it was prayed that the petitioners-plaintiffs be not dispossessed from the land, which has erroneously been projected to the land in Survey No.145/4 by the defendants and the defendants have even obtained orders under Section 250 MPLR Code, that is an enabling provision for eviction of unauthorized occupants from private lands.

3. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the defendants had come out with the plea that there is a previous demarcation proceeding and in the said demarcation proceedings the demarcation of land of the present petitioners plaintiffs was not carried out and the demarcation proceedings were utterly illegal despite which the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have rejected the injunction application by placing reliance on the faulty and vitiated demarcation proceedings.

4. Upon hearing the submissions of the rival parties and on perusal of the documents on record, it is seen that the dispute in the present case is alleged to be of the boundaries. The petitioners have purchased land in Survey No.148/6 whereas the defendants state that they are actually in possession of No.145/4, which is owned by the defendants.

5. Before the Appellate Court this argument was raised that the demarcation got carried out by the defendants is faulty, because the said demarcation does not demarcate Survey No.148/6, which is the land of the plaintiffs.

6. There is a categorical finding of fact by the Lower Appellate Court that between Survey No.148/6 and 145/4 there is Survey No.147 and therefore, the lands owned by the rival parties are not bordering to each other and while demarcating Survey No.145/4 it was therefore not required to demarcate Survey No.148/6, because only the bordering lands are demarcated.

7. This court does not find any error in the aforesaid order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, because the lands of the petitioner and the defendants are not bordering to each other so as would have required the authority carrying out demarcation to demarcate the lands of the petitioner along with demarcation of Survey No.145/4.

8. Resultantly, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere in the well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court. The petition fails and is dismissed. It is, however, observed that nothing contained in this order shall come in way of the petitioner at the time of final adjudication of the suit.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE rj