IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO. OF 2019
APPELLANT/ : MRS. SURYAKALI
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS/ :
Mrs. Sukharjua
I N
D E X
|
Sno
|
Description
of documents
|
Annexure
|
Pages
|
|
1.
|
Index
|
|
1 TO 3
|
|
2.
|
Chronology of events
|
|
4 TO 7
|
|
3.
|
Memo of appeal
|
|
8 TO 24
|
|
4.
|
List of Documents
|
|
25 TO 27
|
|
5.
|
Copy of
the plaint dated 12.11.1982
|
A-1
|
28 TO 37
|
|
6.
|
Copy of the Written Statement dated 24.09.1990 submitted by
Defendant No. 1, 2, 4, & 5
|
A-2
|
38 TO 49
|
|
7.
|
Copy of
the Evidence lead plaintiff Suryakali as PW-1 dated 10.07.2014/ 11.08.2014
|
A-3
|
50 TO 52
|
|
8.
|
Copy of
Evidence lead by Ganga Prasad as PW-2 dated 11.07.2014/ 12.08.2014
|
A-4
|
53 & 54
|
|
9.
|
Copy of Khasra
entries from the year 1956-57 to 1960-61 Exhibit
P-1 dated 01.04.1982
|
A-5
|
55 & 56
|
|
10.
|
Copy of Khasra
entries from the year 1961 – 62 to 1962 – 63 Exhibit P-2 dated 01.04.1982
|
A-6
|
57 TO 63
|
|
11.
|
Copy of Khasra
entries from the year 2001-02 to 2004-05 Exhibit
P-3 dated 23.09.2013
|
A-7
|
64 & 68
|
|
12.
|
Copy of Yearly
Khatauni (Record of Rights) Jamaband for the year 1958-59 Exhibit P-4 dated 01.04.1982
|
A-8
|
69 & 70
|
|
13.
|
Copy of Judgment
dated 09.10.1972 Exhibit P-5
Passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1970, passed by the Court of Civil Judge,
Class-II, Mr. R. P. Verma, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Sukharjua V/s Hinchha Lal
|
A-9
|
71 TO 86
|
|
14.
|
Copy of Decree
dated 09.10.1972 Exhibit P-5
Passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1970, passed by the Court of Civil Judge,
Class-II, Mr. R. P. Verma, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Sukharjua V/s Hinchha Lal
|
A-10
|
87 TO 89
|
|
15.
|
Copy of
the Khasra from the year 1956 – 57 to 1960-61, Khatauni Bandobast Samvat
88-2000 year 1958-59 Exhibit P-6
|
A-11
|
90 TO 98
|
|
16.
|
Copy of
Order dated 24.08.2005 Exhibit P-7
passed by the Court of Thasildar, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in Revenue Case No. 9A6A/2004-05
|
A-12
|
99 TO 101
|
|
17.
|
Copy of
Yearly Khatauni (Record of Rights) Jamaband for the year 1958-59 Exhibit
P-8 dated 22.07.2014
|
A-13
|
102 & 103
|
|
18.
|
Copy of
Jamabandi for the year 1958-59 Exhibit
P-9 dated 22.07.2014
|
A-14
|
104 & 105
|
|
19.
|
Copy of
Khasra entries for the year 2013-14 Exhibit
P-10 dated 04.08.2014
|
A-15
|
106
|
|
20.
|
Copy of
Evidence lead by defendant No. 2 Keshav Prasad as DW-1 dated 20.08.2014
|
A-16
|
107
|
|
21.
|
Copy of
Registered Sale deed 28.03.1987 Vide Exhibit
D-1 executed by Mussamat Buti in favour of Keshav Prasad in
consideration of Rs. 300/-
|
A-17
|
108 TO 110
|
|
22.
|
Copy of
Judgment dated 09.10.1972 Vide Exhibit
D-2 Passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1970, passed by the Court of
Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. R. P. Verma, Teonthar,
District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Sukharajua V/s
Hinchha Lal (it was earlier marked as
Exhibit P-5 by PW-1)
|
A-18
|
111 TO 113
|
|
23.
|
Copy of
Order dated 29.04.1981 Vide Exhibit
D-3 passed by the Court of Thasildar, Teonthar,
District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in Revenue Case No. 57/A-6/1978-79
|
A-19
|
114 TO 118
|
|
24.
|
Order
dated 13.01.1982 Vide Exhibit D-4
passed by the Court of Thasildar, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in Revenue Case No. 45 of 1980
|
A-20
|
119
|
|
25.
|
Copy of
Order dated 10.08.1978 Vide Exhibit
D-5 passed by the Court of
Sub-Divisional Officer, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in Revenue Appeal No. 79/A-6/1978-79
|
A-21
|
120 TO 122
|
|
26.
|
Copy of
the Judgment and Decree dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Court of Civil Judge,
Class-II, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Bhalavi, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Mrs. Suryakali V/s Sukharjua, in the
file of Regular Civil Suit No. 86-A of 1982, [Filing No. 23140-300001-1982],
and { CNR NO. MP -1707-000001-1982}
|
A-22
|
123 TO 128
|
|
27.
|
Copy of
the Memo of Appeal dated 23.02.2015
|
A-23
|
129 TO 131
|
|
28.
|
Certified
copy of the Judgment and Decree dated
15.11.2018 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Mr. Sunil Kumar
Jain, Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Mrs.
Suryakali V/s Sukharjua, in the file of Regular Civil Appeal No. 15-A of 2015
[Filing No. 23140-300054-2015] and {CNR No. MP1707-000047-2015}
|
A-24
|
132 TO 139
|
|
29.
|
Application under Order 39,
Rule 1 & 2 Read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 For
Grant of Temporary Injunction alongwith affidavit
|
|
140 TO 142
|
|
30.
|
Vakalatnama
|
|
143
|
|
31.
|
Court Fee
|
|
144
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE
FOR APPELLANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO. OF 2019
APPELLANT/ : MRS. SURYAKALI
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS/ :
Mrs. Sukharjua
CHRONOLOGY
OF EVENTS
|
S.No
|
Date
|
Events
|
|
1.
|
1935
|
Under the provisions of Section 48 of Rewa Rajya Kanoon Malgujari and
Kashtkari Adhiniyam, 1935 a daughter cannot inherit the property
belonging her father
|
|
2.
|
1957-58
|
The case
of appellant/ plaintiff in brief is that father of plaintiff Ram Dulare was
owner in possession of suit land consisting of
Khasra No. 200, area 0.04 Acre, Khasra No. 201, area 0.06 Acre, Khasra No.
231, area 0.26 Acre, and Khasra No. 232, area 0.22 Acre, situated at R/o
Village – Malpar, Tahsil – Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) as a Pattedar (Government Lessee) and were
land revenue regularly during his life time. Father of plaintiff Ram Dulare
was expired in the year 1957-58.
|
|
3.
|
1970
|
Being the
sole daughter of Ram Dulare, plaintiff became the sole lawful owner of the
suit land after the death of his father. Defendant No. 1 to 5 in collusion
with defendant No. 6 to 8 had filed a suit in the year 1970 for declaration suit land consisting of Khasra No. 200, area 0.04
Acre, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1970 before the Court of
Civil Judge, Class –II, Teonthar by hiding true material facts thereby not
made plaintiff as a party knowingly.
|
|
4.
|
09.10.1972
Exhibit P-5
|
Judgment
and Decree dated 09.10.1972 Exhibit
P-5 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class –II, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Sukharajua V/s Hinchha Lal in the
file of Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1970.
|
|
5.
|
09.10.1972
|
Decree
dated 09.10.1972 Exhibit P-6
Passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1970, passed by the Court of Civil Judge,
Class-II, Mr. R. P. Verma, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Sukharjua V/s Hinchha Lal
|
|
6.
|
09.10.1972
|
Judgment dated
09.10.1972 Vide Exhibit D-2
Passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1970, passed by the Court of Civil Judge,
Class-II, Mr. R. P. Verma, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Sukharajua V/s Hinchha Lal (it was
earlier marked as Exhibit P-5
by PW-1)
|
|
7.
|
10.08.1978
|
Order
dated 10.08.1978 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Appeal Case No.
79-A-6/77-78 had to be held not within time as plaintiff was party to that
proceedings.
|
|
8.
|
10.08.1978
|
Order
dated 10.08.1978 Vide Exhibit D-5 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional
Officer, Teonthar, District – Rewa
(Madhya Pradesh) in Revenue Appeal No. 79/A-6/1978-79
|
|
9.
|
13.01.1982
|
Order
dated 13.01.1982 Vide Exhibit D-4
passed by the Court of Thasildar, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in Revenue Case No. 45 of 1980
|
|
10.
|
01.04.1982
|
Khasra
entries from the year 1956-57 to 1960-61 Exhibit
P-1 dated 01.04.1982
|
|
11.
|
01.04.1982
|
Khasra
entries from the year 1961 – 62 to 1962 – 63 Exhibit P-2 dated 01.04.1982
|
|
12.
|
01.04.1982
|
Yearly
Khatauni (Record of Rights) Jamaband for the year 1958-59 Exhibit P-4 dated 01.04.1982
|
|
13.
|
12.11.1982
|
Appellant/ plaintiff had filed a suit on 12.11.1982 a suit
for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession against the
defendants over suit land consisting of Khasra No. 200, area 0.04 Acre,
Khasra No. 201, area 0.06 Acre, Khasra No. 231, area 0.26 Acre, and Khasra
No. 232, area 0.22 Acre, situated at R/o
Village – Malpar, Tahsil – Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh).
|
|
14.
|
|
It is
undisputed fact that suit land consisting of
Khasra No. 200, area 0.04 Acre, Khasra No. 231, area 0.26 Acre, and Khasra
No. 232, area 0.22 Acre, situated at R/o Village – Malpar, Tahsil –
Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) were recorded in the revenue
record in the named Ram Dulare as Pattedar
(Government Lessee), which was given to him in the family partition and
he was in possession of the same during his life time.
|
|
15.
|
|
The case
of appellant/ plaintiff in brief is that father of plaintiff Ram Dulare was
owner in possession of suit land consisting of
Khasra No. 200, area 0.04 Acre, Khasra No. 201, area 0.06 Acre, Khasra No.
231, area 0.26 Acre, and Khasra No. 232, area 0.22 Acre, situated at R/o
Village – Malpar, Tahsil – Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) as a Pattedar (Government Lessee) and were
land revenue regularly during his life time. Father of plaintiff Ram Dulare
was expired in the year 1957-58.
|
|
16.
|
24.09.1990
|
Defendant
No. 1, 2, 4, & 5 by filing their written statement dated 24.09.1990 pleaded that suit land consisting of Khasra No. 200, area 0.04
Acre, Khasra No. 231, area 0.26 Acre, and Khasra No. 232, area 0.22 Acre,
were recorded in the revenue records in the name of Ram Dulare. But these
land were not self acquired land Ram Dulare. Ram Dulare was never been
cultivating the land bearing Khasra No. 201, area 0.06 Acre as a Pattedar (Government Lessee).
|
|
17.
|
29.04.1981
|
Order
dated 29.04.1981 Vide Exhibit D-3
passed by the Court of Thasildar, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in Revenue Case No. 57/A-6/1978-79
|
|
18.
|
28.03.1987
|
Land bearing Khasra No. 201, area 0.06 Acre were recorded
in the name of Har Prasad, Raj Kumar & Dev Kumar as Pattedar (Government Lessee).
Defendant No. 1 to 5 and Mussamat Buti were their legal heirs. Buti sold her
share in favour of defendant No. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 28.03.1987
Exhibit D-1 in consideration of Rs.300/-.
|
|
19.
|
24.08.2005
|
Order
dated 24.08.2005 Exhibit P-7
passed by the Court of Thasildar, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in Revenue Case No. 9A6A/2004-05
|
|
20.
|
23.09.2013
|
Khasra
entries from the year 2001-02 to 2004-05 Exhibit
P-3 dated 23.09.2013
|
|
21.
|
19.06.2014
|
The trial Court vide its Order dated 19.06.2014 was pleased
to frame as many as 7 issue
|
|
22.
|
10.07.2014/
11.08.2014
|
Copy of
the Evidence lead plaintiff Suryakali as PW-1 dated 10.07.2014/ 11.08.2014
|
|
23.
|
11.07.2014/
12.08.2014
|
Copy of
Evidence lead by Ganga Prasad as PW-2 dated 11.07.2014/ 12.08.2014
|
|
24.
|
22.07.2014
|
Yearly
Khatauni (Record of Rights) Jamaband for the year 1958-59 Exhibit
P-8 dated 22.07.2014
|
|
25.
|
22.07.2014
|
Jamabandi
for the year 1958-59 Exhibit P-9
dated 22.07.2014
|
|
26.
|
04.08.2014
|
Khasra
entries for the year 2013-14 Exhibit
P-10 dated 04.08.2014
|
|
27.
|
20.08.2014
|
Copy of
Evidence lead by defendant No. 2 Keshav Prasad as DW-1 dated 20.08.2014
|
|
28.
|
12.11.2014
|
Judgment
and Decree dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Bhalavi, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Mrs. Suryakali V/s Sukharjua, in the
file of Regular Civil Suit No. 86-A of 1982, [Filing No. 23140-300001-1982],
and { CNR NO. MP -1707-000001-1982}
|
|
29.
|
23.02.2015
|
Feeling
aggrieving and dissatisfied with the same, appellant/ plaintiff preferred a
regular civil appeal on 23.02.2015 under the provisions of Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (No. 5 of 1908) before the lower appellate
Court which resulted into the same fate.
|
|
30.
|
15.11.2018
|
Judgment and Decree dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Court of
Additional District Judge, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Mrs.
Suryakali V/s Sukharjua, in the file of Regular Civil Appeal No. 15-A of 2015
[Filing No. 23140-300054-2015] and {CNR No. MP1707-000047-2015}
|
|
31.
|
|
Appellant filed 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 APPELLANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO. OF 2019
APPELLANT/ : MRS.
SURYAKALI, Aged about 80 years,
Plaintiff Wd/o
Late Mr. Devi Prasad, Occupation – Housewife, R/o Village – Malpar, Post – Anjora,
Police Station – Sohagi, Tahsil – Teonthar, District – Rewa - 486 226 (Madhya
Pradesh) BSNL : 9415662013
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS/ : 1. Mrs. Sukharjua, W/o Mr. Narayan Das,
Defendants Occupation
– Housewife, R/o Village – Malpar, Post – Anjora, Police Station – Sohagi,
Tahsil – Teonthar, District – Rewa - 486 226 (Madhya Pradesh)
(Since Deceased)
through Legal Representative
Keshav Prasad, Aged about 54 Year, S/o
Mr. Narayan Das, Occupation – Agriculturist, R/o Village –
Malpar, Post – Anjora, Police Station – Sohagi, Tahsil – Teonthar, District –
Rewa - 486 226 (Madhya Pradesh)
2. Nirmala,
Aged about 58 years, D/o Mr. Narayan Das, Occupation
– Housewife, R/o Village – Malpar, Post – Anjora, Police Station – Sohagi,
Tahsil – Teonthar, District – Rewa - 486 226 (Madhya Pradesh)
3. Prabhawati,
Aged about 60 years, D/o Mr. Narayan Das, Occupation
– Housewife, (Since Deceased)
through Legal Representative
Ram
Nayak Pandey, Aged about 65 Years, S/o Mr. Ghurai Ram Pandey, Occupation –
Agriculturist, R/o Village – Lahabara, Tahsil – Karchhana, District – Allahabad
-212 301 (Uttar Pradesh).
4. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through The
Collector, District – Rewa- 486 001 (Madhya Pradesh)
[Respondent
No. 2 to 4 were proceeded ex-parte before the Courts below]
{Defendant
No. 1 (Sukharjua) died during trial and Defendant No. 4, 7, & 8 (Prabhawati,
Satya Narayan and Rammuni respectively) died during lower Appellate Court,
therefore not arrayed as party before this Hon’ble High court}
SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION
100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (NO. 5 OF 1908)
[Claim in appeal valued at Rs. 500/- for decree of declaration and Rs.
500/- for permanent injunction and Rs. 500/- for recovery of possession, total
valued at Rs. 1,500/- and Court fee for a sum of Rs. 50/- for decree of
declaration and Rs. 50/- for permanent injunction, and Rs. 50/- for recovery of
possession, total Rs. 150/- is being paid herewith accordingly as before the
Courts below]
Civil Suit filed on
12.11.1982
Being aggrieved by the Judgment and
Decree dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Mr.
Sunil Kumar Jain, Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya
Pradesh) in the matter of Mrs. Suryakali V/s Sukharjua, in the file of Regular
Civil Appeal No. 15-A of 2015 [Filing No. 23140-300054-2015] and {CNR No. MP1707-000047-2015},
arising out of Judgment and Decree dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Court of
Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Bhalavi, Teonthar,
District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Mrs. Suryakali V/s Sukharjua,
in the file of Regular Civil Suit No. 86-A of 1982, [Filing No. 23140-300001-1982],
and { CNR NO. MP -1707-000001-1982}, the appellant / plaintiff named above most
humbly and respectfully begs to file the instant second appeal on following
facts, grounds and substantial question of law, amongst the others :
Material facts of the case :
1.
Appellant/ plaintiff filed a
suit on 12.11.1982 for declaration, permanent injunction and in alternate for recovery
of possession against the defendants over suit land consisting of Khasra No.
200, area 0.04 Acre, Khasra No. 201, area 0.06 Acre, Khasra No. 231, area 0.26
Acre, and Khasra No. 232, area 0.22 Acre, situated at R/o Village – Malpar, Tahsil – Teonthar, District – Rewa
(Madhya Pradesh).
2.
It is undisputed fact that suit land consisting of Khasra No. 200, area 0.04
Acre, Khasra No. 231, area 0.26 Acre, and Khasra No. 232, area 0.22 Acre,
situated at R/o Village – Malpar, Tahsil – Teonthar, District – Rewa
(Madhya Pradesh) were recorded in the revenue record in the named Ram Dulare as
Pattedar, which was given to him in
the family partition and he was in possession of the same during his life time.
3.
The case of appellant/ plaintiff in brief is
that father of plaintiff Ram Dulare was owner in possession of suit land consisting of Khasra No. 200, area 0.04
Acre, Khasra No. 201, area 0.06 Acre, Khasra No. 231, area 0.26 Acre, and
Khasra No. 232, area 0.22 Acre, situated at R/o Village – Malpar, Tahsil
– Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) as a Pattedar (Government Lessee) and were land revenue regularly during
his life time. Father of plaintiff Ram Dulare was expired in the year 1957-58. The
genealogy tree of the Father of plaintiff Ram Dulare is as under :
FATHER
KASHI PRASAD AND RAM SWAROOP WERE REAL BROTHERS :
Kashi
Prasad RAM SWAROOP
(Since
deceased)
Ram Chandra Ram
Sakha Ram Dulare
Musammat Buti Suryakali
Wd/o Ram Sakha (Plaintiff)
Narayan Das
Sukharjua W/o Narayan Das
Keshav Prasad Rohania
Nirmala Prabhawati
Respondent No. 1 (Died during
Trial Court) Respondent No. 2 (Died during lower Appellate Court)
All sons and daughters of Narayan Das
4.
Being the sole daughter of Ram Dulare,
plaintiff became the sole lawful owner of the suit land after the death of his
father. Defendant No. 1 to 5 in collusion with defendant No. 6 to 8 filed a
suit in the year 1970 for declaration suit land
consisting of Khasra No. 200, area 0.04 Acre, which was registered as Civil
Suit No. 9-A of 1970 before the Court of Civil Judge, Class –II, Teonthar by
hiding true material facts thereby not made plaintiff as a party knowingly. On
the basis of Judgment and Decree defendant No. 1 to 5 against defendant
No. 6 to 8 thereby mutated their name in the revenue records. Defendants No. 1
to 5 are not the real legal heirs of Ram Dulare. If plaintiff was having
knowledge of the same, she could have brought the true material facts before
the Court. By the misleading conduct of defendant
No. 1 to 5 the Decree obtained by them does not bind the plaintiff.
Plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit land. Copy of the plaint dated 12.11.1982 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-1.
5.
Defendant No. 1, 2, 4, & 5 by filing
their written statement on 24.09.1990 had
pleaded that suit land consisting of Khasra No.
200, area 0.04 Acre, Khasra No. 231, area 0.26 Acre, and Khasra No. 232, area
0.22 Acre, were recorded in the revenue records in the name of Ram Dulare. But
these lands were not self acquired land Ram Dulare. Ram Dulare was never been
cultivating the land bearing Khasra No. 201, area 0.06 Acre as a Pattedar. Land
bearing Khasra No. 201, area 0.06 Acre were recorded in the name of Har Prasad,
Raj Kumar & Dev Kumar as Pattedar. Defendant No. 1 to 5 and Mussamat Buti
were their legal heirs. Buti sold her share in favour of defendant No. 2 vide
registered sale deed dated 28.03.1987. Therefore the defendant No. 1 to 5 were
became the owner of suit land. Ram Dulare expired on 01.04.1955 during the
existence of the provisions of the Rewa Rajya Kanoon
Malgujari and Kashtkari Adhiniyam, 1935. Therefore
the plaintiff has no right to inherit the same but the brother of Ram Dulare
namely Narayan Das would inherit it. Defendants No. 1 to 5 are the legal heirs
of Narayan Das being his sons and daughters. When cloud was casted over the
title and possession of defendant No. 1 to 5 over the suit land by defendant
No. 6 to 8 a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was filed
before the Court and the Decree was obtained. Thereafter the names of defendant
No. 1 to 5 were mutated in the revenue records.
6.
Though plaintiff was not the
party in the earlier suit but defendant No. 6 to 8 were pleaded to claim title
through her. The pivotal issue in the previous suit was that whether defendant
No. 1 to 5 are entitled to inherit the suit land or the plaintiff. The Court
event went into ascertains the title of plaintiff. Plaintiff was having full
knowledge of previous suit through defendant No. 6 to 8. Therefore she has no
right to challenge the same after a gap of 10 years. Copy of the Written
Statement dated 24.09.1990 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-2.
7.
The trial Court vide its
Order dated 19.06.2014 was pleased to frame as many as 7 issue as described herein
below :
I.
Whether plaintiff being the
sole legal heir of Ram Dulare would inherit the suit land detailed in Para 1 of
the Plaint ?
II.
Whether Ram Dulare expired
in the year 1957-58 ?
III.
Whether defendants are not
the legal heirs of Ram Dulare ?
IV.
Whether without having
knowledge of plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 to 5 in collusion with
defendant No. 6 to 8 obtained Decree of declaration of title in Civil Suit No.
9-A of 1970 by playing fraud upon the Court ?
V.
Whether Decree obtained in Civil Suit No. 9-A
of 1970 so also mutation on the strength of the same being null and void, does
not bind the plaintiff ?
VI.
Whether suit filed by
plaintiff is within time ?
VII.
Cost and expenses ?
8.
Plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and Ganga
Prasad as PW-2. Copy of the Evidence lead plaintiff Suryakali as PW-1 dated 10.07.2014/
11.08.2014 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
A-3. Copy of Evidence lead by Ganga Prasad as PW-2 dated 11.07.2014/
12.08.2014 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
A-4. Plaintiff submitted as many as 10 documents in support of her
claim. These are as under :
|
S. NO.
|
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
|
DOCUMENT DATED
|
EXHIBIT
|
ANNEXURE
|
|
1.
|
Khasra entries from the year 1956-57 to
1960-61
|
01.04.1982
|
Exhibit P-1
|
Annexure A-5
|
|
2.
|
Khasra entries from the year 1961 – 62 to
1962 – 63
|
01.04.1982
|
Exhibit P-2
|
Annexure A-6
|
|
3.
|
Khasra entries from the year 2001-02 to 2004-05
|
23.09.2013
|
Exhibit P-3
|
Annexure A-7
|
|
4.
|
Yearly Khatauni (Record of Rights) Jamaband
for the year 1958-59
|
01.04.1982
|
Exhibit P-4
|
Annexure A-8
|
|
5.
|
Judgment Passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A of
1970, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. R. P. Verma, Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in
the matter of Sukharjua V/s Hinchha Lal
|
09.10.1972
|
Exhibit P-5
|
Annexure A-9
|
|
6.
|
Decree Passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A of
1970, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. R. P. Verma, Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in
the matter of Sukharjua V/s Hinchha Lal
|
09.10.1972
|
Exhibit P-5
|
Annexure A-10
|
|
7.
|
Copy of the Khasra from the year 1956 – 57
to 1960-61, Khatauni Bandobast Samvat 88-2000 year 1958-59
|
1956 – 57 to 1960-61
|
Exhibit P-6
|
Annexure A-11
|
|
8.
|
Order passed by the Court of Thasildar, Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in
Revenue Case No. 9A6A/2004-05
|
24.08.2005
|
Exhibit P-7
|
Annexure A-12
|
|
9.
|
Yearly Khatauni (Record of Rights) Jamaband
for the year 1958-59
|
22.07.2014
|
Exhibit P-8
|
Annexure A-13
|
|
10.
|
Jamabandi for the year 1958-59
|
22.07.2014
|
Exhibit P-9
|
Annexure A-14
|
|
11.
|
Khasra entries for the year 2013-14
|
04.08.2014
|
Exhibit P-10
|
Annexure A-15
|
9.
In rebuttal of their claim defendants
examined defendant No. 2 Keshav Prasad as DW-1. Copy of Evidence lead by
defendant No. 2 Keshav Prasad as DW-1 dated 20.08.2014 is filed herewith and
marked as Annexure A-16. Defendants
submitted as many as 05 documents in support of her claim. These are as under :
|
S. NO.
|
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
|
DOCUMENT DATED
|
EXHIBIT
|
ANNEXURE
|
|
1.
|
Registered Sale deed executed by Mussamat
Buti in favour of Keshav Prasad in consideration of Rs. 300/-
|
28.03.1987
|
Exhibit D-1
|
Annexure A-17
|
|
2.
|
Judgment Passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A of
1970, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. R. P. Verma, Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in
the matter of Sukharajua V/s Hinchha Lal
|
09.10.1972
|
Exhibit D-2 (it was
earlier marked as Exhibit P-5
by PW-1)
|
Annexure A-18
|
|
3.
|
Order passed by the Court of Thasildar, Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in
Revenue Case No. 57/A-6/1978-79
|
29.04.1981
|
Exhibit D-3
|
Annexure A-19
|
|
4.
|
Order passed by the Court of Thasildar, Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in
Revenue Case No. 45 of 1980
|
13.01.1982
|
Exhibit D-4
|
Annexure A-20
|
|
5.
|
Order passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional
Officer, Teonthar, District – Rewa
(Madhya Pradesh) in Revenue Appeal No. 79/A-6/1978-79
|
10.08.1978
|
Exhibit D-5
|
Annexure A-21
|
10.
The trial Court on the basis
misconception of facts and law held that on the basis name in the revenue
records it cannot be presumed that Ram Dulare expired after the year 1958-59.
It goes further held that under the provisions of Section 48 of Rewa Rajya Kanoon Malgujari and
Kashtkari Adhiniyam, 1935 a daughter cannot inherit the property belonging
her father and on the basis of registered sale deed dated 28.03.1987 Exhibit D-1 held that plaintiff is not
peaceful possession of suit land by extending the benefit of Section 114 of the
Evidence Act. While holding that Decree dated 09.10.1972 Exhibit P-5 passed in earlier suit may not be binding on the
plaintiff for the sake of arguments but the earlier suit was not a collusive
and it has not been obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. In accordance
with the provisions of Article 59 of the Limitation Act a suit should have been
filed within 3 years to set aside a Decree so the Order dated 10.08.1978 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Appeal Case No. 79-A-6/77-78 had to be held
not within time as plaintiff was party to that proceedings. Accordingly the
trial court dismissed the suit with a Cost of Rs.10,000/-. Copy of the Judgment
and Decree dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Bhalavi, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Mrs. Suryakali V/s Sukharjua, in the
file of Regular Civil Suit No. 86-A of 1982, [Filing No. 23140-300001-1982],
and { CNR NO. MP -1707-000001-1982}, is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-22.
11.
Feeling aggrieving and dissatisfied with the
same, appellant/ plaintiff preferred a regular civil appeal on 23.02.2015 under
the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (No. 5 of
1908) before the lower appellate Court which resulted into the same fate. Copy
of the Memo of Appeal dated 23.02.2015 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-23. Certified copy of the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 15.11.2018 passed by the
Court of Additional District Judge, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Mrs. Suryakali V/s Sukharjua, in the
file of Regular Civil Appeal No. 15-A of 2015 [Filing No. 23140-300054-2015]
and {CNR No. MP1707-000047-2015} is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-24. Hence this Second Appeal Under the provisions of Section 100 Of
The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 (No. 5 Of 1908) on following grounds
amongst the others :
Grounds Urged :
A.
The Courts below erred in
law in holding that on the basis name in the revenue records it cannot be
presumed that Ram Dulare expired after the year 1958-59. The Coutts below committed
material illegality by holding that under the provisions of Section 48 of Rewa Rajya Kanoon Malgujari and
Kashtkari Adhiniyam, 1935 a daughter cannot inherit the property belonging
her father and on the basis of registered sale deed dated 28.03.1987 Exhibit D-1 held that plaintiff is not
peaceful possession of suit land by extending the benefit of Section 114 of the
Evidence Act.
B.
The Courts below committed grave error and
irregularity in holding that Decree dated 09.10.1972 Exhibit P-5 passed in earlier suit may not be binding on the
plaintiff for the sake of arguments but the earlier suit was not a collusive
and it has not been obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. Further the
Courts below ought not to be hold that in accordance with the provisions of
Article 59 of the Limitation Act a suit should have been filed within 3 years
to set aside a Decree so the Order dated 10.08.1978 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer in Appeal Case No. 79-A-6/77-78, had to be held not
within time as plaintiff was party to that proceedings.
C.
The Courts below ought not to have dismissed
the suit with a Cost of Rs.10,000/-.
D. The Courts below failed to consider that In personam is a Latin phrase meaning "directed toward a particular
person". In a lawsuit in
which the case is against a specific individual, that person must be served
with a summons and
complaint to give the court jurisdiction to
try the case, and the judgment applies to that person and is called an "in personam
judgment". In personam is distinguished from in rem, which
applies to property or "all the world" instead of a specific person.
This technical distinction is important to determine where to file a lawsuit
and how to serve a defendant. In
personam means that a judgment can be enforceable against the person wherever
he/she is. On the other hand, if the lawsuit is to determine title to property (in
rem) then the action must be filed where the property exists and is only
enforceable there.
E. The principle in regard to fraud and its effect in
judicial proceedings has further been explained by the Apex Court in the matter
of Hamza Haji vs
State of Kerala and another reported in
(2006) 7 SCC 416 the Court has held as under :
10. It is true, as observed by De Grey, C.J., in R. Vs.
Duchess of Kingston that:
" 'Fraud' is an extrinsic, collateral act, which
vitiates the most solemn proceedings of courts of justice. Lord Coke says it
avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical and temporal".
11. In Kerr on Fraud and Mistake, it is stated that :
"In applying this rule, it matters not whether the
judgment impugned has been pronounced by an inferior or by the highest Court of
judicature in the realm, but in all cases alike it is competent for every
Court, whether superior or inferior, to treat as a nullity any judgment which
can be clearly shown to have been obtained by manifest fraud."
12. It is also clear as indicated in Kinch Vs. Walcott
that it would be in the power of a party to a decree vitiated by fraud to apply
directly to the Court which pronounced it to vacate it. According to Kerr,
"In order to sustain an action to impeach a judgment, actual fraud must be
shown; mere constructive fraud is not, at all events after long delay,
sufficient … but such a judgment will not be set aside upon mere
proof that the judgment was obtained by perjury." (See the Seventh
Edition, Pages 416-417)
13. In Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 49, paragraph 265,
it is acknowledged that, "Courts of record or of general jurisdiction have
inherent power to vacate or set aside their own judgments".
In paragraph 269, it is further stated: "Fraud or
collusion in obtaining judgment is a sufficient ground for opening or vacating
it, even after the term at which it was rendered, provided the fraud was
extrinsic and collateral to the matter tried and not a matter actually or
potentially in issue in the action.†It is also stated:
"Fraud practiced on the court is always ground for
vacating the judgment, as where the court is deceived or misled as to material
circumstances, or its process is abused, resulting in the rendition of a
judgment which would not have been given if the whole conduct of the case had
been fair".
14. In American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Volume 46,
paragraph 825, it is stated: "Indeed, the connection of fraud with a
judgment constitutes one of the chief causes for interference by a court of
equity with the operation of a judgment. The power of courts of equity in granting
such relief is inherent, and frequent applications for equitable relief against
judgments on this ground were made in equity before the practice of awarding
new trials was introduced into the courts of common law. Where fraud is
involved, it has been held, in some cases, that a remedy at law by appeal,
error, or certiorari does not preclude relief in equity from the judgment. Nor,
it has been said, is there any reason why a judgment obtained by fraud cannot
be the subject of a direct attack by an action in equity even though the
judgment has been satisfied."
15. The law in India is not different. Section
44 of
the Evidence Act enables a party otherwise bound by a previous adjudication to
show that it was not final or binding because it is vitiated by fraud. The
provision therefore gives jurisdiction and authority to a Court to consider and
decide the question whether a prior adjudication is vitiated by fraud. In
Paranjpe Vs. Kanade it was held that: (ILR p.148) “It is always competent to any Court to
vacate any judgment or order, if it be proved that such judgment or order was
obtained by manifest fraud;â€
16. In Lakshmi Charan Saha Vs. Nur Ali [ ILR 38 Calcutta
936], it was held that:
“The jurisdiction of the Court in trying a suit
[questioning the earlier decision as being vitiated by fraud,] was not limited
to an investigation merely as to whether the plaintiff was prevented from
placing his case properly at the prior trial by the fraud of the defendant. The
Court could and must rip up the whole matter for determining whether there had
been fraud in the procurement of the decree.”€
17. In Manindra Nath Mittra Vs. Hari Mondal the Court
explained the elements to be proved before a plea of a prior decision being
vitiated by fraud could be upheld. The Court said: (AIR p.127) "With
respect to the question as to what constitutes fraud for which a decree can be
set aside, two propositions appear to be well established. The first is that
although it is not permitted to show that the Court (in the former suit) was
mistaken, it may be shown that it was misled, in other words, where the Court has
been intentionally misled by the fraud of a party and a fraud has been
committed upon the Court with the intention to procure its judgment, it will
vitiate its judgment. The second is that a decree cannot be set aside merely on
the ground that it has been procured by perjured evidence:â€
18. The position was reiterated by the same High Court in
Esmile- Ud-Din Biswas and Anr. Vs. Shajoran Nessa Bewa & Ors. [132 INDIAN
CASES 897].
“It was held that it must be shown that fraud was
practised in relation to the proceedings in the Court and the decree must be
shown to have been procured by practising fraud of some sort, upon the Court:”
19. In Nemchand Tantia Vs. Kishinchand Chellaram (India)
Ltd. [63 Calcutta Weekly Notes 740], it was held that:
“A decree can be re-opened by a new action when the court
passing it had been misled by fraud, but it cannot be re-opened when the Court
is simply mistaken; when the decree was passed by relying on perjured evidence,
it cannot be said that the court was misled.”€
20. It is not necessary to multiply authorities on this
question since the matter has come up for consideration before this Court on
earlier occasions. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath
(Dead) by LRs & Ors. [(1993) Supp. 3 SCR 422], this Court stated that,
"It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained
by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such
a judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest court - has to be treated
as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged
in any court even in collateral proceedings." The Court went on to observe
that the High Court in that case was totally in error when it stated that there
was no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and
prove it by true evidence. Their Lordships stated:
"The courts of law are meant for imparting justice
between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We
are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being
abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, Bank loan dodgers, and other
unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient
lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say
that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the
Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation".
21. In Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and
Intermediate Education & Others [(2003) Supp. 3 SCR 352], this Court after
quoting the relevant passage from Lazarus Estates Ltd. Vs. Beasley [(1956) 1
All ER 341] and after referring to S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs.
Jagannath (Dead) by LRs & Ors. (supra) reiterated that fraud avoids all
judicial acts. In State of A.P. & Anr. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao [(2005) 6
SCC 149], this Court after referring to the earlier decisions held that
suppression of a material document could also amount to a fraud on the Court. It
also quoted (at SCC p.155, para 16) the observations of Lord Denning in Lazarus
Estates Ltd. Vs. Beasley (supra) that : (All ER p.345 C) "No judgment of a
Court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained
by fraud. Fraud unravels everything."
F. The Supreme Court in the matter of Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1989 further held
that a false statement made in the pleadings intentionally to mislead the Court
amounts to a criminal contempt. The Court has held as under : €œ
“141. It is
a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in the Court or in the
pleadings, intentionally to mislead the Court and obtain a favourable order,
amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends to impede the administration of
justice. It adversely affects the interest of the public in the administration
of justice. Every party is under a legal obligation to make truthful statements
before the Court, for the reason that causing an obstruction in the due course
of justice “undermines
and obstructs the very flow of the unsoiled stream of justice, which has to be
kept clear and pure, and no one can be permitted to take liberties with it by soiling
its purityâ€.
(Vide: Naraindas v.
Government of Madhya Pradesh & others,
AIR 1974 SC 1252:(1974 Cri.LJ 924); The Advocate General, state of Bihar v. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries &
another, AIR 1980 SC 946 : (1980 Cri LJ 684);
and Afzal &
another v. State of Haryana & others, (1996) 7
SCC397): (AIR 1996 SC 2326 : 1996 AIR SCW 824 : 1996 Cri LJ 1679)”.
G. The Supreme Court in the matter of Panna Lal v. Murari
Lal (dead) by his legal representatives reported in AIR 1967 SC 1384 has held
as under in regard to knowledge of the decree :
“The decision was followed in Batulan v. S. K. Dwivedi
(1954) ILR 33, Pat 1025 at pp.1050-8 and other cases. We agree that the
expression "knowledge of the decree" in art. 164 means knowledge
of the particular decree which is sought to be set aside. When the summons was
not duly served, limitation under art. 164 does not start
running against the defendant because he has received some vague information
that some decree has been passed against him. It is a question of fact in each
case whether the information conveyed to the defendant is sufficient to impute
to him knowledge of the decree within the meaning of art. 164. The test of the
sufficiency is not what the information would mean to- a stranger, but what it
meant to the defendant in the light of his previous dealings with the plaintiff
and the facts and circumstances known to him. If from the information conveyed
to him, the defendant has knowledge of the decree sought to be set, aside, time
begins to run against him under art. 164. It is not
necessary that a copy of the decree should be served on the defendant. It is
sufficient that the defendant has knowledge of the material facts concerning
the decree, so that he has a clear perception of the injury suffered by him and
can take effective steps to set aside the decree”.
H.
That the learned Courts below have erred in
questions of law as well as of facts.
I. That the learned Courts below have not been provided an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein. Even the averments made by her
in the plaint have not been dealt with by the learned courts below.
J.
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.
K.
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.
L.
The Judgment and Decree of the courts below
is perverse, malafide and not sustainable in law.
M.
Because if the order impugned Judgment and
Decree, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice and cause
irreparable injury to the appellant against whom it was made.
N.
Because the findings reached by the learned
Courts below is vitiated due to non-consideration of material evidence and by
consideration of inadmissible evidence.
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW
i.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case the findings reached by the learned Courts below is vitiated due to
non-consideration of material evidence and by consideration of inadmissible
evidence ?
ii.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case plaintiff being the sole legal heir of Ram
Dulare would inherit the suit land detailed in Para 1 of the Plaint ?
iii.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case Ram Dulare expired in the year 1957-58 ?
iv.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case defendants are not the legal heirs of Ram Dulare
?
v.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case without having knowledge of plaintiff, Defendant
No. 1 to 5 in collusion with defendant No. 6 to 8 obtained Decree of
declaration of title in Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1970 by playing fraud upon the Court
?
vi.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case Decree obtained in Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1970 so also mutation on the
strength of the same being null and void, does not bind the plaintiff ?
vii.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case suit filed by plaintiff is within time ?
viii.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case the Courts below were right in holding that under
the provisions of Section 48 of Rewa Rajya Kanoon Malgujari
and Kashtkari Adhiniyam, 1935 a daughter cannot inherit the property
belonging her father ?
ix.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case the Courts below were right in holding that on the basis of registered
sale deed dated 28.03.1987 Exhibit
D-1 held that plaintiff is not peaceful possession of suit land by
extending the benefit of Section 114 of the Evidence Act ?
x.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case the Courts below were right in holding that in accordance with the
provisions of Article 59 of the Limitation Act this suit should have been filed
within 3 years to set aside a Decree ?
xi.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case Judgment dated 09.10.1972 Vide Exhibit
D-2 Passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1970, passed by the Court of Civil
Judge, Class-II, Mr. R. P. Verma, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Sukharajua V/s Hinchha Lal (it was
earlier marked as Exhibit P-5
by PW-1) is In personam and not binding upon
plaintiff ?
Caveat :
That No
notice of lodging a caveat by opposite parties is received to appellants.
PRAYER
It is therefore most humbly and
respectfully prayed that the Judgment and Decree dated 15.11.2018 passed by the
Court of Additional District Judge, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Mrs.
Suryakali V/s Sukharjua, in the file of Regular Civil Appeal No. 15-A of 2015
[Filing No. 23140-300054-2015] and {CNR No. MP1707-000047-2015}, arising out of
Judgment and Decree dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Court of Civil Judge,
Class-II, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Bhalavi, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Mrs. Suryakali V/s Sukharjua, in the
file of Regular Civil Suit No. 86-A of 1982, [Filing No. 23140-300001-1982],
and { CNR NO. MP -1707-000001-1982}, may kindly be set aside, with costs
throughout, in the larger interest of Justice.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO. OF 2019
APPELLANT/ : MRS. SURYAKALI
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS/ :
Mrs. Sukharjua
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
|
S.No
|
Description of document
|
Date of document
|
Original copy
|
Number of page
|
|
1.
|
Memo of
plaint
|
12.11.1982
|
Xerox
|
10 (Ten)
|
|
2.
|
Written Statement
submitted by Defendant No. 1, 2, 4, & 5
|
24.09.1990
|
Xerox
|
12 (Twelve)
|
|
3.
|
Evidence
lead plaintiff Suryakali as PW-1
|
10.07.2014/
11.08.2014
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
4.
|
Evidence
lead by Ganga Prasad as PW-2
|
11.07.2014/
12.08.2014
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
5.
|
Khasra
entries from the year 1956-57 to 1960-61 Exhibit
P-1
|
01.04.1982
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
6.
|
Khasra
entries from the year 1961 – 62 to 1962 – 63 Exhibit P-2
|
01.04.1982
|
Xerox
|
07 (Seven)
|
|
7.
|
Khasra
entries from the year 2001-02 to 2004-05 Exhibit
P-3
|
23.09.2013
|
Xerox
|
05 (Five)
|
|
8.
|
Yearly
Khatauni (Record of Rights) Jamaband for the year 1958-59 Exhibit P-4
|
01.04.1982
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
9.
|
Judgment Exhibit P-5 Passed in Civil
Suit No. 9-A of 1970, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. R. P.
Verma, Teonthar, District – Rewa
(Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Sukharjua V/s Hinchha Lal
|
09.10.1972
|
Xerox
|
16 (Sixteen)
|
|
11.
|
Decree Exhibit P-5 Passed in Civil
Suit No. 9-A of 1970, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. R. P.
Verma, Teonthar, District – Rewa
(Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Sukharjua V/s Hinchha Lal
|
09.10.1972
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
12.
|
Khasra
from the year 1956 – 57 to 1960-61, Khatauni Bandobast Samvat 88-2000 year
1958-59 Exhibit P-6
|
1956 – 57
to 1960-61
|
Xerox
|
09 (Nine)
|
|
13.
|
Order Exhibit P-7 passed by the
Court of Thasildar, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in Revenue Case No. 9A6A/2004-05
|
24.08.2005
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
14.
|
Yearly
Khatauni (Record of Rights) Jamaband for the year 1958-59 Exhibit
P-8
|
22.07.2014
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
15.
|
Jamabandi
for the year 1958-59 Exhibit P-9
|
22.07.2014
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
16.
|
Khasra
entries for the year 2013-14 Exhibit
P-10
|
04.08.2014
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
17.
|
Copy of
Evidence lead by defendant No. 2 Keshav Prasad as DW-1
|
20.08.2014
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
18.
|
Registered
Sale deed Vide Exhibit D-1 executed by Mussamat Buti in favour of Keshav
Prasad in consideration of Rs. 300/-
|
28.03.1987
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
19.
|
Judgment Vide Exhibit
D-2 Passed in Civil Suit No. 9-A of 1970, passed by the Court of
Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. R. P. Verma, Teonthar,
District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Sukharajua V/s
Hinchha Lal (it was earlier marked as
Exhibit P-5 by PW-1)
|
09.10.1972
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
20.
|
Order
Vide Exhibit D-3 passed by
the Court of Thasildar, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in Revenue Case No. 57/A-6/1978-79
|
29.04.1981
|
Xerox
|
05 (Five)
|
|
21.
|
Order
Vide Exhibit D-4 passed by
the Court of Thasildar, Teonthar, District
– Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in Revenue Case No. 45 of 1980
|
13.01.1982
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
22.
|
Order
Vide Exhibit D-5 passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional
Officer, Teonthar, District – Rewa
(Madhya Pradesh) in Revenue Appeal No. 79/A-6/1978-79
|
10.08.1978
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
23.
|
Judgment
and Decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Sanjay Kumar
Bhalavi, Teonthar, District – Rewa
(Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Mrs. Suryakali V/s Sukharjua, in the file
of Regular Civil Suit No. 86-A of 1982, [Filing No. 23140-300001-1982], and {
CNR NO. MP -1707-000001-1982}
|
12.11.2014
|
Xerox
|
06 (Six)
|
|
24.
|
Memo of
Appeal
|
23.02.2015
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
25.
|
Judgment and Decree passed by the Court of Additional
District Judge, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in the matter of Mrs.
Suryakali V/s Sukharjua, in the file of Regular Civil Appeal No. 15-A of 2015
[Filing No. 23140-300054-2015] and {CNR No. MP1707-000047-2015}
|
15.11.2018
|
Certified Copy
|
08 (Eight)
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE
FOR APPELLANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO. OF 2019
APPELLANT/ : MRS. SURYAKALI
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS/ :
Mrs. Sukharjua
APPLICATION
UNDER ORDER 39, RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR GRANT OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
Appellants / plaintiff named above most
humbly and respectfully beg to submit as under:
1.
Appellants/Plaintiff
have preferred the instant second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Court of
Additional District Judge, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in
the matter of Mrs. Suryakali V/s Sukharjua, in the file of Regular Civil Appeal
No. 15-A of 2015 [Filing No. 23140-300054-2015] and {CNR No.
MP1707-000047-2015}, arising out of Judgment and Decree dated 12.11.2014 passed
by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Bhalavi, Teonthar, District – Rewa (Madhya Pradesh) in
the matter of Mrs. Suryakali V/s Sukharjua, in the file of Regular Civil Suit
No. 86-A of 1982, [Filing No. 23140-300001-1982], and { CNR NO. MP
-1707-000001-1982}.
2.
As per the averments made in the memo of
appeal, appellant has a good prima facie case in her favour and hopes to
succeed in it. Appellant is in peaceful possession of the suit land and
cultivating the same. If during pendency of instant appeal, respondent No. 1 is
not restrained to interfere in the suit land then the appellant would suffer
irreparable loss and injury. The balance of convenience too lies in her favour.
3.
It is expedient in the interest of Justice
that pending final disposal of instant appeal, respondent No. 1 be restrained not
to interfere in the suit land through an order of temporary injunction.
An
affidavit in support of this application is being filed herewith.
PRAYER
It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that
during pendency of instant appeal respondent No. 1 may kindly be restrained by
an order of temporary injunction restraining himself, his agents, servants to
interfere in the suit land, or alternatively parties may kindly be directed to
maintain status quo, in the larger interest
of Justice.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE
FOR APPELLANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO. OF 2019
APPELLANT/ : MRS. SURYAKALI
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS/ :
Mrs. Sukharjua
AFFIDAVIT
I, MRS. SURYAKALI, Aged about 80 years, Wd/o Late Mr. Devi
Prasad, Occupation – Housewife, R/o Village – Malpar, Post – Anjora, Police
Station – Sohagi, Tahsil – Teonthar, District – Rewa - 486 226 (Madhya Pradesh)
BSNL : 9415662013, do
hereby state on oath as under :
1.
That I am the appellant in the above mentioned second appeal and
am fully conversant with the facts deposed to in the second appeal.
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-24 to the accompanying second
appeal are true copies of the originals and I have compared the said Annexure
with their respective originals and certify them to be true copies thereof. So
help me God.
PLACE
: JABALPUR
DATED
: DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, MRS. SURYAKALI, 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
No comments:
Post a Comment