IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN ON THE 17^th OF FEBRUARY, 2026 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1330 of 2017 JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL & OTHERS Versus SMT. SUSHILA PATEL & OTHERS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......................

Appearance Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta– Advocate for the appellants/defendants.

Shri Rupesh Singh Thakur – Advocate for respondents/plaintiffs.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......................

&

FIRST APPEAL NO. 195 of 2018 SMT. SUSHILA PATEL & OTHERS Versus JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL & OTHERS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......................

Appearance Shri Rupesh Singh Thakur– Advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs.

Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta – Advocate for the respondents/defendants.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......................

Heard on : 15.12.2025

Pronounced on : 17.02.2026

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......................

JUDGMENT

Both these appeals have been preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.32-A/2013 by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Rewa (M.P.).] 2. Since parties in both the appeals are same and both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment and decree and fate of both the appeals depends upon the fate of one appeal, therefore, both the appeals are being heard analogously and decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts of F.A. No.1330/2017 are being taken note of.

(2.1) The plaintiffs and defendants are Hindus governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. They belong to the same family descending from the common ancestor, Vanshi Patel, who had three sons: Visheshwar Patel, Rameshwar Patel, and Rajrup Patel. (2.2) After a family partition among Visheshwar, Rameshwar, and Rajrup, certain lands situated in Village Rathari, Rathara, and Sonaura, Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa (M.P.) came to the share of Rajrup Patel. Rajrup became the recorded owner and remained in possession of those lands. Rajrup Patel died about 30–35 years ago. After his death, his son Triveni Prasad inherited the disputed lands.

(2.3) The plaintiffs state that after Rajrup’s death, the lands were jointly owned by Triveni Prasad, the plaintiffs, and Defendants No. 1 to 7. As the stepmother of some of the parties was a widow without independent means of livelihood, it was mutually agreed that she would enjoy the income from the lands during her lifetime. After her death, the properties were to be divided among the legal heirs. The widow died on 17.01.2012. After her death, the plaintiffs demanded partition and their lawful share on 27.01.2012. Defendant No. 1 refused, stating that the lands had already been mutated in his name. (2.4)

Upon obtaining revenue records, the plaintiffs discovered that several survey numbers in Village Rathari and Rathara had been transferred in favour of Defendants No. 8 to 11 without their knowledge or consent. The plaintiffs allege that such transfers were illegal, without authority, and void.

(2.5) The plaintiffs further allege that the disputed properties are ancestral properties. They claim co-ownership and state that improvements such as plantation of fruit-bearing trees, construction of a boundary wall, and construction of a house were made from joint family income. The plaintiffs also contend that Rajrup Patel did not execute any Will during his lifetime. They allege that the Will produced by Triveni Prasad is forged, fabricated, and not binding on them. It is further alleged that Defendant No. 1 and his sons have already sold portions of other family lands in excess of their share and are therefore not entitled to any further share in the disputed properties. The cause of action arose on 27.01.2012 when Defendant No. 1 refu