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

th

ON THE 17 OF DECEMBER, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 1794 of 2018 CHANDRAKANT KALBHOR(DESEASED) THROUGH LRS (I) SMT.

SHIMLITA KALBHOR Versus SMT. SUMAN KALBHOR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rohit Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Anand V. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents.

JUDGMENT This second appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the th judgment and decree dated 15.05.2018 passed by VIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Regular Civil Appeal No. 138/2016 as well as judgment and decree nd dated 30.11.2016 passed by II Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.

19A/2013.

2. Appellant is plaintiff who has lost his case from both the Courts below.

The original plaintiff Chandrakant Kalbhor died during the pendency of this appeal and accordingly his legal representatives have been brought on record. The appeal is being prosecuted by his legal representatives.

3. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration of title, restoration of possession along with mense profits and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents in respect of a house situated in Saatbhai ki Goth, near Balvikas School, Lakkadkhana, Madhoganj Lashkar Gwalior. It is the case of plaintiff that he is the owner of the disputed house and his brother Dilip was residing in two rooms including kitchen, latrine bathroom and open corridor as a licensee. After the death of Dilip, his legal representatives who are defendants are residing. The disputed property has been shown as A, B, C, D in the plaint map. Now the defendants with a dishonest intention are claiming title over the said part of the property. It was further claimed that defendants after putting lock have shifted to Harishankalpuram-Jhansi Road-Gwalior and are out and out to give possession of the said portion to somebody after taking Money from him. On 22.11.2011 at about 09.00 A.M. one person came along with few other persons and informed that they are purchasing the said portion from the defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff informed them that the house belongs to him and he had given a disputed part of the house to his brother on license for residential purposes and accordingly the legal representatives of his late brother have no right or title to give possession or alienate the property to anybody else. Accordingly the plaintiff issued a registered notice dated 23.11.2011 to the defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the house to the plaintiff and it was also mentioned that in case if the vacant possession is not handed over then they will also be liable to make payment of mense profit at the rate of ₹ 25 per day. The defendants have not vacated the suit premises and accordingly it was pleaded that the plaintiff is also entitled for mense profit at the rate of ₹ 25 per day. Accordingly, the suit was filed for vacant possession of the disputed property which was marked as A, B, C, D in the plaint map along with an amount of ₹2,075 towards mesne profits as well as further mesne profit till the actual possession is given to the plaintiff.

4. The plaint was thereafter amended and it was pleaded that the house in question was purchased by father of the plaintiff namely Shankar Rao, Kalbhor by registered sale deed dated 22.03.1956 and he had constructed the house after taking loan from the Government. The father of plaintiff could not repay the loan during his lifetime and therefore the entire loan was repaid by plaintiff. A Will dated 27.06.1984 was executed by his father and on the basis of said Will he has become the owner of the property in dispute. The plaintiff has also looked after his one more brother and sister. Their marriages were also performed by him.

5. Thus in nutshell, the case of plaintiff was that the property in dispute was purchased by his father Shankar Rao Kalbhor and he had construc