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

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 2605 of 2022 SMT. SHANTI PRAJAPATI AND ANOTHER Versus RAJKUMAR MAHAJAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, Advocate for appellants.

Shri P.C.Chandil, Shri Kamal Mangal and Shri Dinesh Baghel, Advocates for respondent No.1.

Shri Dilip Awasthi, Government Advocate for respondent No.3/State.

WITH SECOND APPEAL No. 2616 of 2022 LAXMAN SINGH YADAV Versus RAJKUMAR MAHAJAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

Shri P.C.Chandil, Shri Kamal Mangal and Shri Dinesh Baghel, Advocates for respondent No.1/caveator.

Shri Dilip Awasthi, Government Advocate for respondent No.4/State.

JUDGMENT By this common judgement, S.A. No. 2605/2022 filed by Smt. Shanti Prajapati and Smt. Sushila and S.A. No.2616/2022 filed by Laxman Singh Yadav shall be disposed of.

2. Both the appeals arise out of judgement and decree dated 16/8/2022 passed by XV District Judge, Gwalior in RCA No. 87/2021, by which the appeal has been allowed and judgement and decree dated 14/8/2021 passed by IV Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior in RCSA No. 2200174A/2015 has been set aside.

3. S.A. No. 2616/2022 was admitted by order dated 13/2/2024 on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether, the first Appellate Court has grossly erred in rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the appellant without considering the provisions of law ?

2. Whether, the parties have validly entered into an agreement to sale regarding the disputed property ?

3. Whether, the appellant has successfully proved that he is bona fide purchaser of the disputed property with consideration ?

4. S.A. No. 2605/2022 was admitted by order dated 13/2/2024 on the following substantial questions of law-

1. Whether, the First Appellate Court has fallen in error in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court ?

2. Whether, the decree for specific performance can be passed against the appellants without directing the purchaser of the disputed property [respondent No.2(a)] as per the provisions of Section 19-b of the Specific Relief Act ?

3. Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is perverse and against the provisions of Specific Relief Act?

4. Whether, the First Appellate Court committed grave error of law while allowing the application filed by the plaintiff in the first appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. without considering the provisions of law ?

5. Both the appeals have been filed by defendants who have lost their case from the appellate Court.

6. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeals, in short, are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of half of Survey Nos. 72 and 73 area 2 Bigha and 3 Biswa situated in village Jaudhupura, Tahsil and District Gwalior is the disputed property.

7. On 12/4/2005, an oral agreement to sell had taken place between plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants in S.A. No. 2605/2022) and later on a registered agreement to sell was executed on 15/12/2010. It is the case of plaintiff that total area of Khasra Nos. 72 and 73 situated in Village Jaudhupura, Tahsil and District Gwalior was 2 Bigha and 3 Biswa and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had half share in the same i.e. 1 Bigha and 1½ Biswa. The said land was declared as excess land under the Ceiling Act. A writ petition was filed before the Gwalior Bench of the High Court which was registered as WP No. 2472/2004 and by order dated 26/11/2009 the said disputed land got released from the ceiling and accordingly the names of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were recorded in the revenue records. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into an oral agreement to sell on 12/4/2005 for alienating their share i.e. 1 Bigha and 1½ Biswa for a consideration amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and they also received Rs.1,