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

th

ON THE 19 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 FIRST APPEAL No. 136 of 2005 BABULAL [D] LRS KAMLA BAI AND ORS.

Versus PRAMOD KUMAR AND ORS.

Appearance:

Shri N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Saket Sharma - Advocate for appellants.

Shri V.K. Bhardwaj - Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Rohit Batham - Advocate for respondents Nos. 1, 3, and 4.

WITH FIRST APPEAL No. 61 of 2005 PRAMOD KUMAR Versus KAMLA BAI & ORS.

Appearance:

Shri V.K. Bhardwaj - Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Rohit Batham - Advocate for appellant.

Shri R.K. Upadhyay - Advocate for respondent No. 3.

JUDGMENT By this common judgment, First Appeal Nos. 136/2005 and 61/2005 shall be disposed of.

2. First Appeal No. 136/2005 has been filed by defendants, whereas First Appeal No. 61/2005 has been filed by plaintiff. Both the appeals have been filed against the same judgment and decree dated 14/12/2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Chachoda Camp, Guna in Civil Suit No. 22-

A/2004.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeals, in short, are that th plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that plaintiff has 1/14 share in the properties in dispute, preliminary decree for rendition of account in the light of judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Class-I in Civil Suit Nos. 32- A/1983 and 8-A/1975, for appointment of Commissioner for settlement of accounts, for delivery of possession of immovable properties as well as for payment of money which would come to the share of plaintiff. It is the case of plaintiff that Gattulal Jain and defendant No. 1 Babulal were real brothers. Plaintiff and defendants Nos. 11 to 16 are the sons of Gattulal, whereas defendant No. 10 is the widow of Gattulal. Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 are the sons of defendant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 7 to 9 are the daughters of defendant No. 1 (Although some of the defendants were minor at the time of institution of suit, but during the pendency of suit, they attained majority, and accordingly, pleadings with regard to their minority were deleted by amendment incorporated in the plaint). It is the case of plaintiff that father of plaintiff, as well as defendant No. 1, were members of joint Hindu family. In a family settlement, which took place prior to 01/11/1974, Gattulal and Babulal had kept the properties mentioned in paragraph 6 as joint and partition was done in respect of other properties. On 01/11/1974, a document in two copies was executed in respect of the properties mentioned in paragraph 6. One copy was given to defendant No. 1, whereas another copy was given to late Shri Gattulal. The details of ancestral/joint Hindu family properties were given in paragraph 6 of the plaint. It was further claimed that Kamlesh Kumar Saxena and his minor brother, through his mother as guardian, had mortgaged one house for a mortgage amount of Rs. 10,000/-, and thereafter, once again simple mortgage was done in respect of the same house for an amount of Rs. 3,500/-. Although the names of defendant No. 1 and his deceased son were mentioned as the mortgagor, but in fact, the money was paid from the income of joint Hindu family properties of Gattulal and defendant No. 1. The house, which was mortgaged, was let out by defendant No. 1 to the mortgagee. Thereafter, plaintiff came to know from defendant No. 1 that a suit was filed for recovery of mortgage amount as well as interest and both the suits were decided and in execution of decree, some amount has also been received. However, it was claimed that defendant No. 1 has not informed the plaintiff that how much amount has been recovered in execution of decrees. Thus, it was claimed that plaintiff is entitled to claim the details of accounts and is also entitled for half of the same as the legal representative of Gattulal. On 06/03/1990, plaintiff and other legal representatives of Gattulal sent a registered notice to Babulal to partition the undivided ancestral properties and t