SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(MP) 565

2026 MPHC-JBP 14425
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DEEPAK KHOT, J.
Vepuri Issac - Appellant
Versus
Vepuri Vijay and Others - Respondents
First Appeal No. 35 of 2025
Decided On : 19-02-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Ms. C. Veda Rao - Advocate with Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel.
For the Respondents : Shri Navaneet Dubey, learned counsel, Shri Alok Kumar Jain – Advocate through Video Conferencing on Caveat., Shri Ravindra Rajput - P.L.

Advocates:
C.Veda Rao,

ORDER : 

With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the XVII District Judge, Jabalpur, in Regular Civil Suit No.668-A/2024, whereby the learned court below allowed the application filed by the respondent no.1/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

2. It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property mentioned in para 2 of the plaint. It is averred in the plaint that the said property was the self acquired property of father of the plaintiff, who purchased the same in the year 2000 and since then the plaintiff is in possession of the said property. It is averred that respondents no. 1 and 2 and respondents no.6 and 7 are real brothers and sisters of the plaintiff whereas respondents no.3 to 5 are legal heirs of Vepuri Jagdish Prasad, who was brother of the appellant/plaintiff and respondents no. 8 to 11 are the purchasers of the suit property. The father of the plaintiff viz. V.J.Sydney died on 12.7.2004 and after his death, the property is equally devolved upon all his legal heirs, i.e. 1/6th share to each LR. In support of his averment, a sale-deed dated 6.3.2000 executed in the name of the Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India, has been filed to show that father of the plaintiff being President of the said society is the owner of the suit property.

3. However, the learned court below found that the said property is sold in the name of the Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India, which is not a registered Trust and not in the name of father of the plaintiff. Thus, the court below found that the property in question is not sold to the father of the plaintiff in his personal capacity but it is sold to an unregistered Trust in the name Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India. Since the Trust was unregistered, therefore, the Trustees of the said Trust has right and title over the property in question. Plaintiff has not averred that his father was one of the Trustee of the said unregistered Trust. Thus, the court below found that the appellant/plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit and accordingly rejected the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC. Being aggrieved therewith, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that father of the plaintiff got a Society registered in the name ‘The Lutheran Mission of Salvation’ whose registration number is JJ3405/1997. It is submitted that father of the appellant purchased 15,478 sqft. of land by two registered sale- deeds of even date 6.3.2000, which was the self acquired property. It is further contended that father of the plaintiff also got established a Trust in the name of ‘The Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India’ and got both the sale-deeds executed in the name of ‘The Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India’, which is an unregistered society. It is further contended that on 28.2.2018 respondent no.1 being President of the Lutheran Mission of Salvation, applied before the Registrar, Firms and Societies for the sale of said land, which was denied by the Registrar on 30.3.2018. However, name of the said society got mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 28.4.2015 passed by the Tahsildar. It is submitted that despite denial of permission by the Registrar, Firms and Societies, the respondent no.1 executed a sale-agreement in favour of one Anurag Baderia in respect of 7739 sqft. of land on 6.7.2021. It is further submitted that the respondent no.1 filed an application on 1.8.2023 before the SDO for correction of name of the society in the revenue record and vide order dated 18.8.2023 name of the Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India got deleted and its place 'The Lutheran Mission of Salvation' got mutated.

5. The plaintiff filed civil suit bear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top