IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA ON THE 17^th OF DECEMBER, 2025 FIRST APPEAL No. 360 of 2011 BHAGWANLAL Versus DEVARAM AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rohit Bansal - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Yash Sharma - Advocate for respondent No.2.

Shri S.S.Kushwaha - Government Advocate for respondent No.5/State.

JUDGMENT

1. This First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 30.11.2011 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Dabra District Gwalior in civil suit number 24-A/ 2011.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff who has lost his case from the Trial Court.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that Survey No. 8, 207, 215, 265/1, 265/2, total area 1.944 hectares situated in Village Ramgarh Tahsil Dabra, District, Gwalior, is jointly owned by defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2. Half of share of defendant no. 1 i.e., 0.486 hectare is the disputed land and accordingly the same shall be described as disputed land. Similarly in Ward No. 2 of Municipal Council Dabra, House No. 264 and 271 are situated. Those houses are mentioned in Schedule A and B to the plaint. The property mentioned in Schedule A has house No. 264 whereas the property mentioned in Schedule B has house No. 271. The aforesaid two houses have also been described as disputed property. It is the case of the plaintiff that Shripat had two sons namely Devaram and Devi Singh. Devaram had two sons and a daughter, namely Bhagawan Lal, Mohan Lal and Pushpa. The wife of Devaram had already expired. It is not out of place to mention here that the suit was filed by Bhagwan Lal, one of the sons of Devaram. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff has disclosed the source of his title. It was his case that Shripat was the original owner of agricultural land as well as the houses. His name was also recorded as a bhumiswami in the revenue record and as owner in the property tax register. Plaintiff is the biological son of defendant no. 1. During the lifetime of Shripat, the family was a joint Hindu family and cultivation was being done jointly. The income was also being derived jointly and the parties were residing jointly in the houses mentioned in Schedule A and B. The family of the plaintiff and the defendant is governed by Mitakshara law. The plaintiff is the coparcener having 1/4^th share in the property i.e., ½ share in the ½ share of his father Devaram. No partition has taken place between the defendants no. 1 and defendant no. 2. Being a coparcener, the plaintiff has a right in the property from his birth. Shripat has expired and mother of plaintiff Shanti Bai had died when the plaintiff was only 5 years of age. Plaintiff was looked after by Shripat and defendant no. 2, Devi Singh. After the death of Shanti Bai, defendant no. 1 started residing with one Pushpa after performing Ghadicha. On the basis of forged mark sheet, defendant no.1 got service in MPEB. Mohanlal was born from the relationship of defendant no.1 with Pushpa, who at present is residing in Shyampur. After the death of Shripat, the defendant no. 1 had no possession over the agricultural lands and the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 were in joint possession of the agricultural lands and even today they are in the joint possession. However, The revenue entries were made illegally. When the plaintiff obtained the revenue records, then he found that from samvat 2007 to samvat 2024, the name of Shripat was recorded. Thereafter, in Survey No. 8, the name of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 was jointly recorded. However, the basis of such mutation is not available in the revenue record. Survey numbers 207, 215, 265/1, 265/3 have been re-numbered as 265/2 and in the revenue records the name of defendant no.2 is mentioned. Whereas In respect of Survey No.8, there is a