##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN th ON THE 16 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 FIRST APPEAL No. 227 of 1997 RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS Versus MAITHILSHARAN GUPTA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pramendra Singh Thakur - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Sr. Adv. with Shri Akshay Singh - Advocate appeared for the respondents.

ORDER This present first appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against judgment and decree dated 30.04.1997 passed by the trial Court of Additional District Judge, Umaria then part of District Shahdol, in RCSA No. 22 of 1995. The suit was filed for declaration of title, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and by way of amendment, also for recovery of possession. The suit has been decreed by the trial Court against which the defendants No.3 and 5 are before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit by granting a decree of declaration and possession in favor of the plaintiff though the plaintiff had failed to prove the suit beyond all doubts. It is argued that the plaintiff had come out with a case that he had purchased half portion of the property which is a residential house, on the strength of sale deed Exhibit P-1 dated 20.05.1993. However, the said sale deed is not specific and does clearly mention the boundaries of the property sold. Sale of half portion of a residential property is not possible because a residential house cannot be divided in such a manner so as to sell exactly half of the house. It is further argued that the boundaries neither in the sale deed are specific, nor in the plaint the boundaries are specific and therefore the title document and the plaint containing ambiguous boundaries could not have been entertained by the trial Court and the trial Court has erred in decreeing such a suit.

3. It is further argued that the defendant No. 3 alone did not have any title to the suit house because the house was succeeded by the defendant No.3 from his father and sufficient evidence has been brought out on record to indicate that his deceased father is survived by defendant No.3, as well as his wife who is mother of defendant No.3, i.e. defendant No.5 as well as two brothers and one sister. Therefore, half portion of the house could not be sold by the defendant No.3 and such a sale deed did not vest any title in favour of the plaintiff and such a suit could not have been decreed.

4. It is further argued that the sale deed had never been executed by the defendant No.3 and the trial Court has not properly conducted inquiry into the matter and without conducting proper inquiry into the matter, the trial Court has decreed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the signatures on the questioned sale deed are not marked by the defendant No.3 as vendor and the signatures of defendant No.5 as consent giver are also forged, and therefore the entire document Exhibit P-1 has been obtained by fraud and such a document does not vest any title on the plaintiff. The trial Court has erroneously held that the plea of fraud is not proved and has given effect to the said sale deed. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the fact that there was no any sale deed is further borne out from the fact that from the assertions of the plaint as well as the evidence adduced on record it would be clear that the plaintiff never entered into possession of the suit property and once the plaintiff never entered into possession of the suit property, therefore it would be clear that the sale deed is a forged piece of document, otherwise the plaintiff would have entered into possession of the suit property immediately upon execution of the sale deed.

5. On these grounds, it is prayed to set aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court and to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff. The learned counsel f