LAXMAN, Aged about 60 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, S/o Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi, R/o Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna, (Madhya Pradesh)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                      OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :                  LAXMAN

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/              :        Mrs. Jamotri Bai

DECLARATION

(Under Rule 25 of Chapter X)

The copies as required by Rule 25 of Chapter X of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, have served upon Clerk of office of the Advocate General for India at      PM on                2018 in Jabalpur.

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATED :                              ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                      OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :                  LAXMAN

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/              :        Mrs. Jamotri Bai

I N D E X

S. No.	Description of documents	Annexure	Pages
1.	DECLARATION (Under Rule 25 of Chapter X)		1
2.	Index		2 & 3
3.	Chronology of Events		4 & 5
4.	Memo of appeal		6 TO 15
5.	List of documents.		16 & 17
6.	Copy of the plaint dated 28.11.2013	A-1	18 TO 25
7.	Copy of the Written Statement dated 28.08.2014 filed by defendant No. 1	A-2	26 TO 29
8.	Copy of the Written Statement dated 03.03.2014 filed by defendant No. 3, 4, 5, & 6	A-3	30 TO 33
9.	Copy of the oral evidence dated 24. 02.2015 filed by plaintiff No. 1	A-4	34 TO 38
10.	Copy of Judgement and Decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013	A-5	39 TO 55
11.	Copy of the Memo of Appeal Dated 10.03.2018	A-6	56 TO 67
12.	Copy of the application Dated 10.03.2018 for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963	A-7	68 & 69
13.	Certified Copy of the Judgement and Decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018	A-8	70 TO 73
14.	Application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction alongwith affidavit		74 TO 76
15.	Vakalatnama		77
16.	Court Fee		78

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATE :                                  ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                                OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :                  LAXMAN

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/              :        Mrs. Jamotri Bai

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

S.No	Date	Events
1.	28.11.2013	Respondent No. 1 to 4/ plaintiffs had filed a suit on 28.11.2013 for decree of declaration, partition, separate possession and permanent injunction against the appellant/ defendants.
2.	03.02.2014	defendant No. 7 was proceeded ex-partee on 03.02.2014,
3.	03.03.2014	defendant No. 3 was proceeded on 03.03.2014 ex-partee,
4.	03.03.2014	Written Statement dated 03.03.2014 filed by defendant No. 3, 4, 5, & 6 are on record but no evidence was lead by them.
5.	31.07.2014	After serving the notice defendant No. 8 were proceeded ex-partee on 31.07.2014.
6.	28.08.2014	Their written statements are on record but no evidence was lead by them. Written Statement dated 28.08.2014 filed by defendant No. 1. They have denied all adverse allegations and contentions raised against them except the admitted facts.
7.	29.10.2014	Defendant No. 1, 3, 4, 5, & 6 were proceeded ex-partee on 29.10.2014.
8.	24.02.2015	Respondent No. 1/ plaintiff No. 1 had filed her examination in chief under Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Copy of the oral evidence dated 24.02.2015 filed by plaintiff No. 1.
9.	05.07.2016	The trial Court below without appreciating the true material facts and so also misconception of law decreed the suit vide Judgement and Decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013.
10.	10.03.2018	Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid Judgement and Decree passed by the Trial Court, appellants/ Defendant No. 1, 2, & 7 had preferred a civil appeal on 10.03.2018 under the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (No. 5 of 1908) alongwith an application for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
11.	11.07.2018	The lower appellate Court dismissed the application Dated 10.03.2018 for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 holding that no case was made out showing sufficient cause therefore consequently dismissed the appeal too vide Judgement and Decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018.
12.		Appellant preferred a second appeal under the provisions of Section 100 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( No. 5 Of 1908) before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATE :                                  ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                      OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :        1.       LAXMAN, Aged about 60

Defendant No. 1, 2, & 7                 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, S/o Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi,  

                                                          2.      SONE LAL, Aged about 57

                                                          years, Occupation – Agriculturist, S/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi, 

No. 1 & 2 both R/o Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh).

                                                          3.      Mrs. RAM KALI, Aged

about 54 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, D/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi,  W/o Mr. Teeka Ram, R/o village – Katni, Tahsil and District – Katni (Madhya Pradesh).

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/                       1.       Mrs. Jamotri Bai, aged

Plaintiffs                                         about 46 years, Occupation – ife, D/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi, W/o Mr. Bal Kishun Lodhi, R/o Village – Tola, Tahsil Reethi,  District – Katni (Madhya Pradesh).

                                                          2.      Mrs. Panni Bai, aged about

44 years, Occupation – Housewife, D/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi, W/o Mr. Hubba Lodhi, R/o Village Sarsi, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh).

3.      Mrs. Gota Bai, aged about 41 years, Occupation – Housewife, D/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi, W/o Mr. Ashok Lodhi, R/o Village Rahkari, Tahsil – Reethi, District – Katni (Madhya Pradesh).

4.      Mrs. Chinjo Bai, aged about 37 years, Occupation – Housewife, D/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi, W/o Mr. Vijay Lodhi, R/o Village Rahkari, Tahsil – Reethi, District – Katni (Madhya Pradesh).

Defendant No. 3 to 5 & 8             5.      Ram Swaroop, aged about 42 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, S/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi,

                                                          6.      Jai Kumar, aged about 12 years, Minor through father Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi,

                                                          7.       Sant Kumar, aged about 10 years, Minor through father Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi,

No. 1 & 2 both R/o Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh).

8. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through the Collector, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh).

SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ( NO. 5 OF 1908)

[Claim in appeal valued at Rs. 186/- being 20 times of annual land revenue of Rs. 14.30/-for the purposes of declaration, Rs. 538/- being 60 times of annual land revenue of Rs. 4.30/- for the purposes of partition and Rs. 186/- being 20 times of annual land revenue of Rs. 14.30/-for the purposes of permanent injunction AND COURT FEE FOR A SUM OF RS. 1,500/- (for 3 of each declaration relief of Rs.500/-) FOR DECLARATION, RS. 100/- FOR PARTITION, AND RS. 100/- INJUNCTION, TOTAL RS. 1,700/- are being paid herewith accordingly as before the Courts below]

CIVIL SUIT FILED ON 28.10.2013

Being aggrieved by the Judgement and Decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018, arising out of Judgement and Decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013, the appellants/ Defendant No. 1, 2, & 7 beg to prefer the instant appeal on following facts and grounds and substantial question of Law, amongst the others :

MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE :

1.     Respondent No. 1 to 4/ plaintiffs had filed a suit on 28.11.2013 for decree of declaration, partition, separate possession and permanent injunction against the appellant/ defendants. Copy of the plaint dated 28.11.2013 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-1.

2.    It is an admitted fact that parties to the suit belongs to the members of the same family.

3.    After serving the notice defendant No. 8 were proceeded ex-partee on 31.07.2014, defendant No. 7 was proceeded ex-partee on 03.02.2014, defendant No. 3 was proceeded on 03.03.2014 ex-partee, and defendant No. 1, 3, 4, 5, & 6 were proceeded ex-partee on 29.10.2014. Their written statements are on record but no evidence was lead by them. Copy of the Written Statement dated 28.08.2014 filed by defendant No. 1 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-2. Copy of the Written Statement dated 03.03.2014 filed by defendant No. 3, 4, 5, & 6 are filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-3. They have denied all adverse allegations and contentions raised against them except the admitted facts.

4.    Respondent No. 1/ plaintiff No. 1 had filed her examination in chief under Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Copy of the oral evidence dated 24. 02.2015 filed by plaintiff No. 1 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-4.

5.    The trial Court below without appreciating the true material facts and so also misconception of law decreed the suit. Copy of Judgement and Decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-5.

6.    Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid Judgement and Decree passed by the Trial Court, appellants/ Defendant No. 1, 2, & 7 had preferred a civil appeal on 10.03.2018 under the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (No. 5 of 1908) alongwith an application for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Copy of the Memo of Appeal Dated 10.03.2018 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-6. Copy of the application Dated 10.03.2018 for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-7.

7.     The lower appellate Court dismissed the application Dated 10.03.2018 for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 holding that no case was made out showing sufficient cause therefore consequently dismissed the appeal too. Certified Copy of the Judgement and Decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-8. Hence this second appeal on following grounds amongst the others :

GROUNDS URGED :

A.   That the learned Courts below have erred in questions of law as well as of facts.

B.   That the learned Courts below have not been provided an opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein. Even the averments made by him in the written statements have not been dealt with by the learned courts below.

C.   That the findings of the learned Courts below are liable to be reversed as they are based on imagination, incorrect and wrong appreciation of facts.

D.  That the Judgment of the learned Courts below is erroneous and deserves to be reversed as it is based on mere surmises and misconception of facts and law.

E.   The Judgment and Decree of the courts below is perverse, malafide and not sustainable in law.

F.    Because if the order impugned/ Judgement and Decree, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the appellants against whom it was made.

G.  Because the findings reached by the learned Courts below is vitiated due to non-consideration of material evidence and by consideration of inadmissible evidence.

H.  It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court as held by the apex Court in the case of Ramnath Sao @ Ramnath Sahu & Ors. v. Govardhan  AIR 2002 SC 1201 = (2002)3 SCC 195. 

I.      Because trial Court was erred in Law in holding that the plaintiffs and  defendant No. 1 to 7 are the joint owners in possession of the suit agricultural land situated at Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh) as described in para 1 of the plaint.

J.     Because trial Court was erred in Law in right in findings reached by the learned Courts below is vitiated due to non-consideration of material evidence and by consideration of inadmissible evidence.

K.   Because trial Court was erred in Law in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of partition and separate possession of the suit agricultural land situated at Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh) as described in para 1 of the plaint.

L.    Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of decaration that the sale deed dated 25.09.2012 executed by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendant NO. 4 & 5 to be null and void.

M.Because trial Court was erred in Law in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction in view of defendant No. 1 to 7 are causing interference in the peaceful possession of suit land and trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land.

N.  Because trial Court was erred in Law in holding that the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by Court of Tahsildar, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh) in file of Revenue Case No. 118/A-27/2011-12.

O.  Because lower appellate Court was erred in Law in holding that the appellants failed to make out a case of sufficient cause to condone the delay in view of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW

Though the expression "substantial question of law" has not been defined in any of the Act or in any of the statutes where this expression appears, e.g., section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The true meaning and connotation of this expression is now well settled by various judicial pronouncements. It was observed by the Supreme Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., that “a question of law would be a substantial question of law if it directly or indirectly affects the rights of parties and/or there is some doubt or difference of opinion on the issue". But “if the question is settled by the Apex Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well-settled, mere application of it to a particular set of facts would not constitute a substantial question of law" – Krishna Kumar Aggarwal v. Assessing Officer.

      I.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs and  defendant No. 1 to 7 are the joint owners in possession of the suit agricultural land situated at Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh) as described in para 1 of the plaint ?

  II.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in findings reached by the learned Courts below is vitiated due to non-consideration of material evidence and by consideration of inadmissible evidence ?

III.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of partition and separate possession of the suit agricultural land situated at Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh) as described in para 1 of the plaint ?

IV.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of decaration that the sale deed dated 25.09.2012 executed by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendant NO. 4 & 5 to be null and void ?

   V.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction in view of defendant No. 1 to 7 are causing interference in the peaceful possession of suit land and trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land ?

VI.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in holding that the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by Court of Tahsildar, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh) in file of Revenue Case No. 118/A-27/2011-12 ?

VII.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the lower appellate Court was right in holding that the appellants failed to make out a case of sufficient cause to condone the delay in view of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ?

Caveat :

That, no notice of lodging a caveat by the opposite party is received.

PRAYER

It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that Judgement and Decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018, arising out of Judgement and Decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013, may kindly be set aside, with costs throughout, in the larger in the interest of Justice.

Any other relief deemed fit and proper may also be granted.

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATE :                                  ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                      OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :                  LAXMAN

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/              :        Mrs. Jamotri Bai

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

S.No	Description of document	Date of document	Original copy	Number of page
1.	Memo of the plaint	28.11.2013	Xerox	08 (Eight)
2.	Memo of the Written Statement filed by defendant No. 1	28.08.2014	Xerox	04 (Four)
3.	Memo of the Written Statement  filed by defendant No. 3, 4, 5, & 6	03.03.2014	Xerox	04 (Four)
4.	Memo of the oral evidence filed by plaintiff No. 1	24. 02.2015	Xerox	05 (Five )
5.	Judgement and Decree  passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013	05.07.2016	Xerox	17 (Seventeen)
6.	Memo of Appeal	10.03.2018	Xerox	12 (Twelve)
7.	Application for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963	10.03.2018	Xerox	02 (Two)
8.	Certified Copy of the Judgement and Decree  passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018	11.07.2018	Certified Copy	04 (Four)

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATED :                              ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                      OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :                  LAXMAN

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/              :        Mrs. Jamotri Bai

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39, RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ( NO. 5 OF 1908) FOR GRANT OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

Appellant named above most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under :

1.     Appellant has preferred the instant second appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( No. 5 of 1908) against the Judgement and Decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018, arising out of Judgement and Decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013.

2.    Appellants are in peaceful possession suit agricultural land since last 50 years and cultivating the same. As per the averment made in the memo of appeal, appellants have a good prima facie case and hope to succeed in it. In order to frustrate the claim of appellants, the respondent No. 1 to 4/ plaintiffs is intended to sell the suit land. If during pendency of instant appeal, the respondent No. 1 to 4/ plaintiffs are not restrained by an order of temporary injunction, from alienating, creating third party interest, selling the suit land to third party, appellants would suffer irreparable loss and injury. The balance of convenience too lies in favour of appellants.

3.    From the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove in the preceeding paras, it is expedient in the larger interest of Justice, that the respondent No. 1 to 4/ plaintiffs be restrained by an order of temporary injunction, from alienating, creating third party interest, selling the suit land to third party.

An affidavit in support of this application is being filed herewith.

PRAYER

It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that during pendency of the instant appeal the respondent No. 1 to 4/ plaintiffs may kindly be restrained by an order of temporary injunction, from alienating, creating third party interest, selling the suit land to third party, in the larger interest of Justice.

Any other relief deemed fit and proper may also be granted.

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATED :                              ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                      OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :                  LAXMAN

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/              :        Mrs. Jamotri Bai

AFFIDAVIT

I, LAXMAN, Aged about 60 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, S/o Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi,  R/o Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna, (Madhya Pradesh), do hereby state on oath as under :

1.      That I am the appellant No. 1 and am fully conversant with the facts deposed to in the accompanying application.

2.     That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the accompanying application are true to my personal knowledge and the contents of paragraphs are based on legal advice, which I believe to be true. No material has been concealed and no part is false.

3.     That the Annexure No(s). A-1 to A-8 to the accompanying appeal are true copies of the originals and I have compared the said Annexures with their respective originals and certify them to be true copies thereof.

PLACE : JABALPUR                                                      

DATED :                                                           DEPONENT

                                                             

VERIFICATION

I, LAXMAN, the above named deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of the affidavit above are true to my personal knowledge and nothing material has been concealed or falsely stated. Verified at ______this______day of _______

DEPONENT