1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL

FIRST APPEAL No. 574 of 1997

Between:-

1.

KAPOOR CHAND S/O MANGALJEET (DEAD)

THROUGH HIS LRS

1(A). ARUN KUMAR S/O LATE KAPOOR CHAND

JAIN AGED 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TYPIST

R/O GANJHI BAZAR, BEGAMGANJ DISTT:

RAISEN ((MADHYA PRADESH)

1(B).

KU. ANJANA BAI D/O LATE KAPOOR CHAND

JAIN AGED 42 YEARS, R/O BEGAMGANJ

PRESENTLY UDASIN VATKA ASHRAM SOUTH

TUKOGANJ, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

1(C). SMT. RAJKUMARI JAIN W/O ARUN KUMAR

JAIN, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O GANDHI BAZAR,

BEGAMGANJ, DISTT. RAISEN (MADHYA

PRADESH)

1(D). KU. PRITIBHA JAIN, AGED 7 YEARS

MINOR AND D/O ARUN KUMAR JAIN R/O

GANDHI BAZAR, BEGAMGANJ, RAISEN

(MADHYA PRADESH)

1(E).

KU. PRAGYA JAIN, AGED 3 YEARS

MINOR AND D/O ARUN KUMAR JAIN R/O

GANDHI BAZAR, BEGAMGANJ, RAISEN

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI IMTIYAZ HUSAIN-SENIOR ADVOCATE

WITH SHRI MOHD. SAJID AND SHRI RAVIKANT

PATEL-ADVOCATES)

AND

1.

LAXMI CHAND S/O INDERCHAND AGED 69

2

YEARS (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS

1(A). SMT. LAXMI BAI, D/O LATE LAXMI CHAND,

W/O KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN, AGED 40 YEARS,

R/O KALOOPURA MOHALLA, AHMEDABAD

(GUJARAT)

1(B).

CHANDMAL S/O LAXMI CHAND JAIN AGED 39

YEARS

1(C). RAKESH KUMAR S/O LAXMI CHAND JAIN

AGED 25 YEARS

1(D). BRIJESH KUMAR, S/O LAXMI CHAND JAIN,

AGED 22 YEARS

ALL R/O NEAR KISHAN MOHALLA GAIRAT

GANJ, DIST.. RAISEN (M.P.)

.....RESPONDENTS

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

Reserved on

:

05.08.2022

Delivered on

:

16.08.2022

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

This appeal coming on for final this day, Court passed the

following:

JUDGMENT

This first appeal has been filed by appellants/plaintiffs challenging

the judgment & decree dated 21.08.1997 passed by Addl. District Judge,

Begumganj (Raisen) in Civil Suit No. 10-A/1988 whereby suit for

possession of house and damages filed by original plaintiff Kapoorchand

(now his representatives) has been dismissed.

2.

In short the facts are that Mangaljeet was owner of the suit

property, who died after leaving two sons namely Inderchand,

Kapoorchand and one daughter Bhuribai, who died issueless. The present

3

appellants are descendants of original plaintiff Kapoorchand and the

defendants are descendants of Inderchand. It is alleged that in his

lifetime, Mangaljeet partitioned his property in which he gave one portion

of house to plaintiff Kapoorchand and another portion was given to

Inderchand and kept middle portion for himself, in which till his death

daughter Bhuribai remained in possession. This middle portion only is in

dispute. It is alleged that by way of registered deed (Tamleeknama) dated

06.01.1947 (Ex.P/1A) Bhuribai was given life interest in the disputed

property and she was not having any right to alienate/transfer the suit

property to any other person and it was specifically mentioned in the deed

dated 06.01.1947 that after death of Bhuribai the property would fall to

Kapoorchand. It is alleged that after death of Bhuribai, the defendants

took possession on the house illegally, therefore, the suit was filed by

Kapoorchand for possession claiming himself to be the exclusive owner

on the basis of Deed (Ex.P/1A).

3.

The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the

plaint allegations and claimed themselves to be owner of the suit property

on the basis of Will (Ex.D/3) allegedly executed by Bhuribai in favour of

Lakhmichand (Laxmichand). Denying all other allegations, the

defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4.

On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court framed as many as 13

issues and recorded evidence of the parties. After taking into

consideration the entire evidence available on record, learned trial Court

held that the house in question was not given for residence to Bhuribai

and it is not proved that Bhuribai had no right to transfer. It is held