- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gajendra Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Upadhyaya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL ON THE 9thOF OCTOBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 2585 of 2024
GAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJENDRA PRASAD UPADHYAYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saurabh Pathak - Advocate for the appellants.
ORDER
This second appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2024 passed by 4th District Judge, Sagar in RCA No.61/2024 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2007 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Sagar in civil suit no.4-A/2007 whereby Trial Court decreed the appellant 1/plaintiff - Gajendra Singh's suit for declaration of title and for declaring the sale deed dated 03.05.1999 as null and void, executed by his father Sher Singh- defendant 2 in favour of Rajendra Upadhyay - defendant 1 and in civil appeal filed by the defendant 1, the suit has been dismissed.
2 . Learned counsel for the appellants (plaintiff - Gajendra Singh and LRs. of defendant 2-Sher Singh) submits that the suit land survey no.1269 area 0.60 hectare belonged to plaintiff's ancestor -Adhar Singh and the plaintiff being coparcener was having right by birth, therefore, defendant 2- Sher Singh alone was not competent to execute the sale deed in favour of
1
defendant 1, who got executed the sale deed in his favour by playing fraud on the defendant 2. He submits that taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, Trial Court rightly decreed the suit, but First Appellate Court has committed an illegality in reversing the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and in dismissing the suit. With these submissions he prays for admission of second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 4 . From perusal of record it appears that there is no documentary evidence available on record to show that the land in question belonged to ancestor of plaintiff namely Adhar Singh. The plaintiff has come with the case that the defendant 1-Rajendra Upadhyay got executed the sale deed on 03.05.1999 by playing fraud on the defendant -2 Sher Singh. Apparently the suit was instituted on 05.01.2007 in which Sher Singh was also made party as defendant 2, who died after passing of the judgment and decree by Trial Court on 31.10.2007. As to why Sher Singh did not file the suit, nothing is available on record. It is also apparent from the record that Sher Singh has also been examined as a witness and has not taken any action to get the sale deed cancelled, which is said to have got executed by playing fraud on the defendant 2 - Sher Singh by defendant 1- Rajendra Upadhyay. Further even if the suit property is considered as an ancestral property in the hands of Sher Singh, then also the plaintiff - Gajendra Singh was not having any right in the suit property in the life time of his father namely Sher Singh. 5 . In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court.
2
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
6 . Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law this second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ss
3
Alert