Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 176 (MP)

Saurabh v. Mohakam Singh

2014-02-10

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
ORDER 1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Court of II ADJ, Bhind in Civil Appeal No.16A of 2008, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2008 passed by the Court of II Civil Judge, Class 2, Bhind in Civil Suit No.100A of 2004 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaration of the sale deed as null and void against the respondents/defendants was dismissed holding that for want of relief of possession and being barred by limitation the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. In this appeal, the appellant is referred to as “plaintiff” and the respondents as “defendants'. 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the defendant No.2 is father of plaintiff and brother of defendant No.3 and the disputed land was sold by his father i.e. defendant No.2 during minority of plaintiff on 22.12.1993. The defendants No.2 to 4 were proceeded exparte and no relief was claimed against them. 3. The facts in brief of the plaint are that the ½ part of the land in dispute bearing Khasra No.67 area 136 Aare situated in village Badanpura (hereinafter would be referred to as “disputed land”) owned by the plaintiff was sold by father and brother of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 22.12.1993 to the defendant No.1 during his minority without prior permission of the Court. But in spite of that, the plaintiff remained in possession of it and since in the garb of illegal sale deed, the defendant No.1 tried to dispossess the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant No.1 for the relief stated herein above. 4. The defendant No.1 filing written statement denied the plaint averments stating that the defendant No.2 being Karta Khandan sold the land in dispute with the consent of plaintiff to meet the needs of the family and handed over possession of it and since then, he has been cultivating it. The suit was not filed within three years from the date of attaining majority by the plaintiff and now, since the prices of the land have gone up, the suit was got filed by the defendant No.2 through the plaintiff and hence, it is not maintainable. The suit was not filed within three years from the date of attaining majority by the plaintiff and now, since the prices of the land have gone up, the suit was got filed by the defendant No.2 through the plaintiff and hence, it is not maintainable. Hence, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. 5. The defendants No.2 to 4 did not file any written statement and were proceeded exparte in the matter. 6. After framing of the six issues, recording evidence of both the parties and having considered the recorded evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants as stated above. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal has been filed as stated herein above. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the learned Courts below have not properly considered the evidence produced by the plaintiff, owing to which the judgments passed by them deserves to the set aside. 10. On perusal of the record and the judgments of both the Courts, it becomes clear that the plaintiff challenging the validity of the sale deed dated 22.12.93 filed the suit after 11 years. As per allegations of the plaintiff, when the sale deed was executed, the plaintiff was sixteen years old. The aforesaid sale deed executed by his father as guardian during his minority without seeking permission under section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is illegal and void against the plaintiff's interest. Both the learned Courts below having discussed the evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is baseless and time barred as the suit ought to have been filed by the plaintiff under section 8 and Article 60 of the Limitation Act within three years after his attaining majority. As per plaintiff's pleading, the plaintiff was 16 years old in the year 1993. On the basis of which he became major in 1995. Thus, the suit ought to have been filed in the year 1998 i.e. within three years from 1995 whereas, it was filed in 2004. As per plaintiff's pleading, the plaintiff was 16 years old in the year 1993. On the basis of which he became major in 1995. Thus, the suit ought to have been filed in the year 1998 i.e. within three years from 1995 whereas, it was filed in 2004. As a result, the suit turned time barred, owing to which, the relief sought by the plaintiff cannot be given. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, both the learned Courts below have not committed any error in dismissing the suit. No reason has been found for any interference in the findings of the Courts below. Since findings of both the Courts are concurrent and no substantial question of law crops up for admission in this appeal, it is concluded that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 12. Thus, the appeal being merit less and devoid of substance, is hereby dismissed. 13. No order as to the costs. Let the decree be drawn up accordingly.