Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1153 (MP)

Sher Khan v. Baboo Khan

2003-10-13

A.K.AWASTHY

body2003
JUDGMENT Appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal under section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 24.6.2003 in Civil Appeal No. 29 A/02 passed by IInd ADJ Dewas confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.9.2000. Passed by IInd Civil Judge Class-II Dewas in Civil Suit No. 52A/99 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession was dismissed. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land area about 4.23 hectares situated at village Tannod tehsil and District Dewas was the joint family property of plaintiff No.1 and defendants No.1 and 2 and that plaintiff No. 1 has given his part of the land to the defendants on "Batai" and thereafter plaintiff No.1 has executed a Will of the suit land in favour of Heerakhan. The defendants refused to return the half portion of the suit land to the plaintiffs and as such the decree of possession and mesne profit be passed against them. The case of the defendants is that they are the sole owners of the suit land and plaintiff No.1 had no share in the property. It is denied by the defendants that plaintiffs gave the suit land to the defendants on "Batai". Admittedly the plaintiff sherkhan is claiming title over the suit land from his father Gafarkhan, who is the son of Natthekhan. From the perusal of the khsara it is clear that the father of plaintiff Sherkhan was Gafarkhan and the father of Gafarkhan was Natthekhan, but in Panchsala Khasra of 1941-42 it is written that father of Gafarkhan was Khushikhan. Consequently, it is clear that the alleged Gafarkhan whose name is displayed in Panchsala in the year 1941-42 was not the father of the plaintiff. Plaintiffs have not led any evidence nor specifically pleaded that when they handedover possession of the suit land to the defendants on "Batai"" The plaintiff Sherkhan has admitted that in Panchasala Khasra of 1941-42 Gafarkhan was wrongly shown as son of Khushikhan. He made an application for correction of the name of the father of Gafarkhan. The copy of the application filed for correction of the entries in Khasra or relevent order is not filed. The learned appellate Court and the learned trial Court have discussed the possession of the defendants on the suit land and the documentary evidence produced by the parties. The copy of the application filed for correction of the entries in Khasra or relevent order is not filed. The learned appellate Court and the learned trial Court have discussed the possession of the defendants on the suit land and the documentary evidence produced by the parties. The concurrent findings of fact are based on proper appreciation of evidence and no substantial question of law appears in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.