RAMAVTAR NAI Vs. BHAIYAJI NAI
LAWS(MPH)-2021-2-7
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on February 01,2021

Ramavtar Nai Appellant
VERSUS
Bhaiyaji Nai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Anjuli Palo,J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants being aggrieved by the judgment/decree dated 14.09.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur in Civil Appeal No. 20A/2015 arising out of the judgment/decree dated 27.09.2014 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Laudi in Civil Suit No. 11A/2012 whereby the appeal filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.09.2019.
(2.) The appellant No.1/ defendant and respondent No.1/ plaintiff are real brothers. The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of sale deed dated 04.10.2011 as null and void and also challenging the order of the Naib Tehsildar dated 18.11.2011 and proposal No. 2/38 dated 15.08.2008 passed by the gram sabha Kandela to be null and void. He further prayed for possession over the share of the disputed property. The trial Court partially allowing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, passed the following decree:
(3.) Being aggrieved by the judgment/decree passed by the trial Court, present appellant/defendant preferred an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 20A/2015 before the appellate Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.09.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Lavkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court held that the disputed land belongs to the Sarju-father of the appellant No.1 and respondent No.1 and after the death of their father, the suit property was mutated in the name of Ramavtar/appellant No.1. The Court below held that it is not proved that during the lifetime of their father- Sarju, the property was partitioned between the appellant No.1 and respondent No.1. Thus, the Court below held that only on the basis of mutation, appellant No.1/defendant is not entitled to claim ownership over the entire suit property. The lower Appellate Court further observed that Ramavtar/appellant had illegally dispossessed the respondent/plaintiff from the suit property. Hence, it was held that the plaintiff is entitled for possession of his share in the suit land.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.