TUTU SINGH Vs. UDAL SINGH
LAWS(MPH)-2020-5-61
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on May 01,2020

Tutu Singh Appellant
VERSUS
UDAL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Tutu Singh was plaintiff before the trial Court and he has filed suit for possession and permanent injunction over khasra no. 21/2 new no. 147 measuring 70 acres. As per the pleadings of the plaintiff, he and defendant belonged to same family. The ancestral lands of the plaintiff and defendant were partitioned in the year 1986 and since then each of them is in possession of their shares and doing agriculture over it. When plaintiff was about five years old then his grandfather Nandlal has gifted him a land as per the gift deed dated 09.09.1986. The land was self acquired property of Nandalal. In the year 2013 defendant has forcefully taken possession of the land and sowed their crops on it. Plaintiff has filed an application under Section 250 of M.P.L.R.C before Tehsildar but same was dismissed on the ground that defendants are in possession since long time.
(2.)Defendants had filed their written statement and stated that father of Tutu Singh namely Neetram has prepared a false gift deed. Plaintiff has not given the details of khasra numbers over which defendants has forcibly taken possession. It is submitted by the defendants that they are in possession of land which fall in their shares. Disputed land is in name of plaintiff and his brother Jeevan Singh but Jeevan Singh has not been made a party in the case, therefore, civil suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary party and deserves to be dismissed.
(3.)Learned trial Court held that plaintiff was able to prove the gift deed. Gift deed is registered deed, written and signed by two witnesses. Learner trial Court held that plaintiff is owner of land bearing no. 147 measuring 0.28 hectares situated in Village Budrukhi, Tehsil and District Dindori. Trial Court decreed the suit and held that that plaintiff is owner of the suit land and further defendant nos. 1 to 6 were directed to handover the possession of land within a period of two months. Defendants were further restrained from interfering with the position of land in question themselves or through their agents.


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