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

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 168 of 2018 SMT. PUNIYAVAI @ POONAM KUSHWAH Versus SMT. BHARTI DEVI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Mohan Lal Bansal - Advocate for appellant. Mr. Rohit Jain - Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. C.P. Singh - Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 5.

JUDGMENT This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 08/11/2017 passed by Sixth Additional District Judge, District Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 54-A/2014, by which judgment and decree dated 13/03/2014 passed by Sixth Civil Judge, Class I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 191-A/2013 was partially set aside, and it was held that defendant No. 4 Smt. Bharti Devi has one-fourth share in disputed land bearing Survey Nos. 390, area 0.282 hectare, Survey No. 391, area 0.314 hectare, Survey No. 391/2, area 0.010 hectare, and Survey No. 397, area 0.408 hectare situated in village Girwai, District Gwalior, and finding given by the Trial Court to the extent that sale deed dated 16/06/2006 is null and void to the extent of share of plaintiff was set aside and it was held that defendant No. 4 Smt. Bharti Devi is entitled to get the possession of her share after due partition.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiff/appellant filed a civil suit for declaration that she has one-fourth share in disputed property bearing Survey Nos. 390, 391, 391/2 and 397 situated in village Girwai, District Gwalior, as well as for permanent injunction. It is the case of plaintiff/appellant that the aforesaid property is an ancestral property which was in the ownership and possession of her father Ram Singh. Plaintiff as well as defendants No. 1 to 3 are members of the same family. Defendant No. 1 is the mother of plaintiff, whereas defendants No. 2 and 3 are brothers of the plaintiff. Thus, it was claimed that plaintiff is the co-owner of the disputed property and is having one-fourth share. After the death of Ram Singh, plaintiff is one of the Class I heirs. Ram Singh had not executed any Will, and therefore, plaintiff is in cultivating possession of one-fourth part of the land in dispute. When the plaintiff was in need of money and was intending to alienate her part of share, then she came to know that after the death of Ram Singh, her name has not been mutated in the revenue records and some part of the disputed ancestral property has been sold by defendants No. 1 to 3 to defendant No. 4, and taking advantage of the illiteracy of plaintiff, property has been mutated. On 22/11/2012, defendant No. 4 tried to take possession of a part of the disputed property, i.e., 0.149 hectare, and a threat was also given by defendant No. 4 that very soon she will take possession of the same. It was claimed that since the disputed property has not been partitioned and no demarcation has taken place, therefore, defendant No. 4 has no right to take possession of any specific piece of land. Accordingly, it was prayed that the suit be decreed and sale deed dated 16/06/2006, executed by defendants No. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 4, be declared as null and void to the extent of one-fourth share of plaintiff.

3. Defendants No. 1 to 3 filed their written statement and admitted that late Ram Singh was the owner and in possession of the property. They also admitted that the property is a joint property, but late Ram Singh had not given any share to plaintiff. It was admitted that the disputed property has not been partitioned and no demarcation has taken place, and accordingly, it was prayed that plaintiff has filed the suit with an intention to harass defendants No. 1 to 3, therefore, they also prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

4. Defendant No. 4 filed her written statement and pleaded that plaintiff has wrongly claimed that property in dispute is the ancestral property. Ram Singh had a share in