LAWS(MPH)-2025-4-69

SANTOSH RAGHUVANSHI Vs. RAJESH SINGH

Decided On April 03, 2025
Santosh Raghuvanshi Appellant
V/S
RAJESH SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal, under Sec. 100 of CPC, has been filed against judgment and decree dtd. 9/3/2022 passed by II Additional Judge to the Court of I District Judge, Basoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in RCA No.100009/2016 arising out of the judgment and decree dtd. 10/12/2015 passed by II Civil Judge Class- I, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in RCSA No.97/2015.

(2.) The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs who have lost their case from both the courts below.

(3.) Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pleading inter alia that Neelam Singh Raghuvanshi was the father of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 and husband of plaintiff no.6. He had 1/2 share in lands situated in village Bhiyakhedi and in village Nateran. Father of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 filed an application for partition of lands situated in village Bhiyakhedi and Nateran which was registered as Case No./A27/119/10. It was alleged that defendants without there being any title have got the name of Neelam Singh Raghuvanshi deleted from the aforesaid land and got their names mutated by obtaining an order dtd. 11/4/2011. After the aforesaid order, Neelam Singh went in depression and became the victim of serious ailment, as a result he died about a year back. It was the claim of the appellants that being legal representatives of Neelam Singh they are entitled to get their title declared. It was further alleged that order dtd. 11/4/2011 passed by Tahsildar in case No.123/A27/2009-10 is null and void to the extent of rights of plaintiffs. It is further submitted that now the defendants are also denying the title of the plaintiffs in respect of land situated in village Nateran and accordingly the suit was filed for declaration of title as well as for declaration that order dtd. 11/4/2011 passed by Tahsildar, Nateran in Case No. 123/A27/2009-10 is null and void to the extent of share of plaintiffs and it was also prayed that plaintiffs are entitled to get their names mutated in the revenue records.