IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN ON THE 18^th OF DECEMBER, 2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. 344 of 1998 UMESH SINGH (D) TH. SMT. SOHAN AND ANOTHER Versus SANTOSH SINGH AND OTHERS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......................

Appearance Shri Sourabh Pathak– Advocates for the appellants.

Shri Madan Mohan Jaiswal – Advocate for the respondents.

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

Heard on : 13.10.2025 Pronounced on : 18.12.2025 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………......................

JUDGMENT

Since pleadings are complete, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the impugned judgement and decree dated 27^th March 1998 passed by learned Second Additional District judge, Shahdol in Civil Suit No. 7A/89, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants for declaration of title and for declaring the sale deed dated 03-10-1988 as null and void was rejected. It is an admitted fact that the disputed land was self acquired property of Ganesh Pratap Singh. Plaintiffs Umesh Pratap Singh, Kalyan Singh and defendant Santosh Kumar Singh are sons of the Ganesh Pratap Singh. Ganesh Pratap Singh has also four daughters and they got married. Apart from this, Ganesh Pratap had three more sons namely Tejbhan, Ranvijay and Samar Bahadur. Tejbhan had died without any children. His wife also died. Ranvijay’s sons, daughter and wife are alive. Ranvijay had also died.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as under:-

(3.1) The disputed land, which consist of 95 Khasra numbers, total area being 18.932 hectares situated at Gram Badra,Tahsil Sohagpur District Shahdol was the self acquired property of late Shri Ganesh Pratap Singh. (3.2) On 5^th March 1970, Ganesh Pratap Singh sold 12.96 acres out of disputed land in favour of defendant/respondent no. 2 Kamta Pratap Singh. (3.3) On 9^th October 1983, partition of remaining of disputed land was held by Ganesh Pratap Singh. Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 being sons of Ganesh Pratap Singh got 3.715 hectares, 6.037 hectares and 2.344 hectares respectively and since then they are in possession of their respective shares. (3.4) On 3^rd October 1988, defendant/respondent No.1 got the sale deed of entire disputed land executed in his favour from Ganesh Pratap Singh by fraud. He got the signature of his father, Ganesh Pratap Singh by misrepresenting that those documents were court file relating to loan taken by plaintiffs to purchase tractor. The plaintiffs have no other agricultural land except for share of disputed land which they got in partition.

(3.5) Defendant no. 1 has filed his written-statement and asserted that Ganesh Pratap Singh had never sold any land to defendant no.2. Defendant No. 2 is the brother-in-law of plaintiff Umesh Singh and he prepared this forged plaint to grab the land. Therefore, till date, no action has been taken by the defendant No. 2 on the basis of this sale deed.

(3.6) Plaintiffs had certainly got a partition deed prepared by pressurising Ganesh Pratap Singh but no action has been taken on the basis of this partition deed. Partition deed was not registered. Therefore, this partition deed is not admissible in evidence. The plaintiffs used to harass Ganesh Pratap Singh, so he sold his land for Rs. 75,000/- to defendant No. 1.

(3.7) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed issues and after completion of trial, the trial court has rejected the suit of plaintiffs.

4. Learned council for the appellants/plaintiffs has submitted that the trial court has committed illegality in not relying on the unregistered partition deed dated 09/10/1983(Exhibit-P/2). This document was not even admitted in evidence. Even defendant No.1 h