Mangalwati Vs. Rakesh

Mangalwati vs Rakesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 02, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1051879

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1051879
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jul 02, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mangalwati

Respondent

Rakesh

Excerpt

.....by this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india, the petitioners/plaintiffs are challenging the order dated 20.09.2007 passed by learned civil judge, class ii, parasia in 2 civil suit no.25a/07 by which an application under order 14 rule 5 cpc filed by the plaintiffs has been rejected.2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.3. indeed, in the application of the plaintiffs under order 14 rules 5 and 6 cpc, the proposed issues are not stated by them. however, on bare perusal of the averments made in para 4 of the plaint, this court finds that pleading of plaintiffs is that the land in question is ancestral and the said land was mortgaged by tekamsha (who was the husband of plaintiff no.1; father of plaintiff no.2 and grandfather of plaintiff no.3 along with defendant no.2) and dillisha was his real brother. the defendant no.2 did not deposit the loan amount as a result of which 3.56 acres of land out of total area of 7.21 acres has been sold by the bank. the averments made in para 4 of the plaint has been denied by the defendants in their separate written-statement and it has been denied that on account of not deposition of loan amount in the bank by defendant no.2, part of the land in question has been sold. according to me, necessary issues ought to have been framed on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and denial in the written-statement. i have also gone through the copy of the issues which are framed but i do not find that any of the issues which are framed would cover the controversy which has arisen from the aforesaid pleadings”4. in this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is hereby set aside. learned trial court is hereby directed to frame necessary issues on the basis of averments made in para 4 of the plaint and denial in the written-statement.5. this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. no costs. (a.k......

Full Judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.15950 of 2007 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA Petitioners :

1. Mangalwati, W/o Tekamsha Gond, R/o Village Baraia, District Chhindwara, M.P.

2. Kamal Shah, S/o Tekamsha Gond, R/o Village Baraia, District Chhindwara, M.P.

3. Ramjan Shah, S/o Late Samal Shah, Through guardian grandmother Mangalwati, W/o Tekamsha Gond, R/o Village Baraia, District Chhindwara, M.P. Versus Respondents :

1. Rakesh, S/o Nandlal Jaiswal, R/o Pagara, District Chhindwara, M.P.

2. Dillisha, S/o Sukhram Shah, R/o Bararia, District Chhindwara, M.P.

3. State of M.P. Through Collector Chindwara, District Chhindwara, M.P. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioners by - Smt. Sudha Pandit, Advocate. Respondents no.1 & 2 -Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocate. Respondents no.3 - Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer ORDER

(02/07/2013) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/plaintiffs are challenging the order dated 20.09.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class II, Parasia in 2 Civil Suit No.25A/07 by which an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC filed by the plaintiffs has been rejected.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

3. Indeed, in the application of the plaintiffs under Order 14 Rules 5 and 6 CPC, the proposed issues are not stated by them. However, on bare perusal of the averments made in para 4 of the plaint, this Court finds that pleading of plaintiffs is that the land in question is ancestral and the said land was mortgaged by Tekamsha (who was the husband of plaintiff no.1; father of plaintiff no.2 and grandfather of plaintiff no.3 along with defendant no.2) and Dillisha was his real brother. The defendant no.2 did not deposit the loan amount as a result of which 3.56 acres of land out of total area of 7.21 acres has been sold by the Bank. The averments made in para 4 of the plaint has been denied by the defendants in their separate written-statement and it has been denied that on account of not deposition of loan amount in the Bank by defendant no.2, part of the land in question has been sold. According to me, necessary issues ought to have been framed on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and denial in the written-statement. I have also gone through the copy of the issues which are framed but I do not find that any of the issues which are framed would cover the controversy which has arisen from the aforesaid pleadings”

4. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is hereby set aside. Learned Trial Court is hereby directed to frame necessary issues on the basis of averments made in para 4 of the plaint and denial in the written-statement.

5. This petition succeeds and is hereby allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No costs. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao 4

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Mangalwati vs Rakesh Same Subject Land Acquisition