Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1277 (MP)

Dwarka Prasad v. State of M. P.

2014-10-07

M.C.GARG

body2014
JUDGMENT: In this case, the appellants have filed this second appeal feeling aggrieved by the consistent finding of the learned courts below in having dismissing the suit for injunction as well as for a declaration that the appellant is the owner of the property. 2. Before the Civil Judge, the appellants failed to produce any document on record which may establish that the appellants were in possession of the property. 2. Before the Civil Judge, the appellants failed to produce any document on record which may establish that the appellants were in possession of the property. For the sake of convenience, some relevant discussion which clarifies factual position with respect to the possession of the property in paras 19,20 and 21 of the judgment of the appellate court are reproduced herein below : “19 - iz-ih- 19 ds [kljk vuqlkj losZ ua- 104@1 ds dSfQ;r ds dkye esa vihykFkhZ@oknh vfrdzed ntZ gSa vU; o"kksZa esa ;kus 85&86] 86&87] 87&88] 88&89 esa ;gh fLFkfr ikbZ tk jgh gSA losZ ua- 378 ds dSfQ;r ds dkye esa vihykFkhZ@oknh dk vfrdze.k ntZ gS vkSj blh vuqlkj vU; o"kksZa dh Hkh fLFkfr ikbZ tk jgh gSA o"kZ 88&89 esa vihykFkhZ@oknh }kjk eos'kh pjkdj vfrdze.k n'kkZ;k x;k gS fdlh 'kkldh; Hkwfe ij eos'kh pjk ysus ek= ls vkf/kiR; LFkkfir ugha gks tkrk gSA losZ ua- 380 ds dSfQ;r ds dkye esa mijksDrkuqlkj gh ds'kjhflag dk vkf/kiR; ntZ gS vkSj blh vuqlkj 85&86] 86&87 dh Hkh fLFkfr gS rFkk o"kZ 87&88 esa fdlh gjhflag vkSj m/keflag dk dCtk ntZ gSA bu lHkh o"kksZa esa ;kfu 84&85] 85&86] 86&87] 87&88 vkSj 88&89 esa vihykFkhZ@oknh dk vkf/kiR; ntZ ugha gSA 88&89 esa gjhflag vkSj ijljke dk rFkk Hkkjrflag dk dCtk ntZ gSA losZ ua- 383 ds dSfQ;r ds dkye esa Hkh 85&86] 86&87 dh izfof"V esa ds'kjhflag ds }kjdk izlkn dk Hkh vfrdze.k ntZ gSA tks 0-421 gs0 jdos ij gSA o"kZ 87&88 esa ;gh fLFkfr gS vkSj 88&89 esa Hkh vihykFkhZ@oknh dh ;gh fLFkfr gS vkSj bl losZ ua- ds laca/k esa 5-080 gs0 jdos dh lgk;rk pkgh xbZ gS tcfd dCtk 0-421 gs0 ij n'kkZ;k x;k gS ftlls fd jdos dh vlekurk Li"VA 1662@2005 n`f"Vxkspj gks jgh gSA 20- mijksDrkuqlkj izLrqr [kljk tkr ls vihykFkhZ@oknh dk oknxzLr Hkwfe ij 30 o"kksZa ls ;k mlls vf/kd le; ls 'kklu dh tkudkjh esa mldk fujarj 'kkafriw.kZ] csjksdVksd ,oa gksLVkbZy izd`fr dk vkf/kiR; lkfcr ugha gks jgk gSA bl laca/k esa izR;FkhZ@izfroknh 'kklu dh vksj ls U;k;n`"Vkar 1995 e-iz- jktLo fu.kZ; &57 e-iz- jkT; fo0 dqUnuflag ,oa 1997 e0iz0 jktLo fu.kZ;&330 jkeflag rFkk vU; fo0 jkeyky rFkk vU;] izLrqr fd;s x;s ftuesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd [kljk tkr esa " chM+M Hkwfe dk ?kkal ” dk bUnzkt ,slh Hkwfe Hkw&/kkjh dh “ n[ky Hkwfe ” ds :i esa ;k iwoZ Lokeh dh “ [kqndk'r ” ds :i esa ugha ekuh tk ldrhA blh izdkj [kljk tkr esa chMM+ ;k ?kkl dk bUnzkt oknh dh [kqndk'r Hkwfe ugha gSA 21 - oknh us ;g okn fnukad 24-9-02 dks izLrqr fd;k gSA mldh vksj ls [kljk tkr o"kZ 2002 esa is'k ugha fd;s x;s gSa ftlls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ekuk gS fd nkok nk;jh fnukad dks mldk vkf/kiR; izekf.kr ugha gks jgk gS ijUrq iwoZ ds o"kksZa esa mldk vkf/kiR; Hkwfe [kljk dz- 380 dks NksM+dj dbZ o"kksZa dk ik;k tk jgk gSA 383 esa vo'; mldk vkf/kiR; 0-421 gs0 ij vafdr gS ftlls ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa mls csn[ky fd;k x;k ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS mlus ekSf[kd lk{; esa crk;k gS fd mldk fookfnr Hkwfe ij nkok nk;jh fnukad dks vkf/kiR; gS ftlls ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa Hkwfe [kljk dzekad 380 dks NksM+dj Hkwfe [kljk dzekad 383 ds 0-421 gs0 ,oa vU; fookfnr Hkwfe ij ls mls csn[ky fof/klEer izfdz;k viuk;s fcuk csn[ky u fd;k tk;sA bl funsZ'k ds lkFk ;g vihy lkjghu gksus ls fujLr dh tkrh gSA rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkyksP; fu.kZ; ,oa vkKfIr dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA ” 3. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find it to be a fit case wherein, by entertaining this appeal the jurisdiction vested under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be exercised in favour of the appellants. However, the condition imposed by the first appellate court for dispossessing the appellants with respect to the property mentioned in paragraph 21 shall remain in force. With the aforesaid, this appeal stands dismissed.