Chuttan Bai Vs. Yogesh

Chuttan Bai vs Yogesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jun 27, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1053870

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/1053870
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jun 27, 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

Chuttan Bai

Advocate Shri. Sushil Tiwari

Respondent

Yogesh

Excerpt

.....ist additional district judge, betul in misc. civil appeal no.03/13, affirming the order dated 14.3.2013 passed by iiird civil judge, class-ii, betul in civil suit no.70-a/12, whereby allowing application of the respondents- plaintiff file under rule 39, rule 1 and 2 of cpc by issuing ad interim injunction, the petitioners have been restrained to interfere in possession of the disputed land of respondents. having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view the arguments, on perusing the record, i have found that as per the written statement and the reply of the petitioners.they are claiming the aforesaid land and its possession on the basis of some agreement, executed in 1985, as submitted by the petitioners.counsel and also on the basis of some demarcation report of land prepared by the revenue authority, in which the possession of the petitioners was stated on the disputed land. it is apparent from the impugned orders that the aforesaid alleged agreement of 1985 has not been filed on behalf of the petitioners on the record either with the written statement or with the reply of aforesaid interlocutory injunction application. except the demarcation report, no other document to show their prima facie possession over the disputed land has been filed. in the lack of any admissible document to show that at any point of time, the possession of the disputed land was obtained by the petitioners.the version stated by the petitioners could not be considered as gospel truth. on the other hand, as per case of the respondents- plaintiffs, they have acquisition the title and possession of the land by registered sale deed executed by the earlier bhumiswami in their favour and as per averments of sale deed, the possession of land was also given to them. in such premises, the trial court has not committed any error in issuing the interim injunction and appellate court has also affirmed such order with correct approach. in view of aforesaid discussion, the courts below have.....

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No.9513/2013 27.06.2013 Shri Sushil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.He is heard on the question of admission.

With the permission of the court, the counsel has corrected the description of the petitioners on the cause title of petition.

Thereby he has replaced the “plaintiffs”.

by mentioning the “defendants”.The same is certified accordingly.

The counsel is heard on the question of admission.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 20.4.2013 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Betul in Misc.

Civil Appeal No.03/13, affirming the order dated 14.3.2013 passed by IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-II, Betul in Civil Suit No.70-A/12, whereby allowing application of the respondents- plaintiff file under Rule 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by issuing ad interim injunction, the petitioners have been restrained to interfere in possession of the disputed land of respondents.

Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view the arguments, on perusing the record, I have found that as per the written statement and the reply of the petitioneRs.they are claiming the aforesaid land and its possession on the basis of some agreement, executed in 1985, as submitted by the petitioneRs.counsel and also on the basis of some demarcation report of land prepared by the revenue authority, in which the possession of the petitioners was stated on the disputed land.

It is apparent from the impugned orders that the aforesaid alleged agreement of 1985 has not been filed on behalf of the petitioners on the record either with the written statement or with the reply of aforesaid interlocutory injunction application.

Except the demarcation report, no other document to show their prima facie possession over the disputed land has been filed.

In the lack of any admissible document to show that at any point of time, the possession of the disputed land was obtained by the petitioneRs.the version stated by the petitioners could not be considered as gospel truth.

On the other hand, as per case of the respondents- plaintiffs, they have acquisition the title and possession of the land by registered sale deed executed by the earlier Bhumiswami in their favour and as per averments of sale deed, the possession of land was also given to them.

In such premises, the trial court has not committed any error in issuing the interim injunction and appellate court has also affirmed such order with correct approach.

In view of aforesaid discussion, the courts below have not committed any error in passing the impugned ordeRs.The same do not require any interference at this stage and in such premises, I have not found any circumstance even for admission of this petition.

Consequently the same is dismissed at the stage of motion hearing on admission.

Consequently IA No.7277/13 an application for grant of interim relief is also dismissed.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Chuttan Bai vs Yogesh Same Subject Land Acquisition