0

Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms Dismissal of Review Petition in Land Sale Discrepancy Case, Citing Sale Deed Error as Inadequate Grounds for Review.”

Blog, Madhya Pradesh High Court , , ,

Case Title – Govind Khandelwal Vs. Shri Suresh Khandelwal & Ors.

Case Number – Review Petition No. 255 of 2024

Dated on – 16th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Gajendra Singh

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Govind Khandelwal Vs. Shri Suresh Khandelwal & Ors., the Appellant in the case, Govind Khandelwal, has instituted a review petition challenging an order dated 23rd of January, 2024, which duly dismissed the Writ Appeal No. 1341/2022. The Appellant in the case was aggrieved by the order of the court made in Case No. 1063-One/13 and 1064-One/13 dated 17th of September,2014 by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior.  These orders of the Board of Revenue permitted the revision of the Appellant and instructed the mutation of Survey No. 219, with an area of 0.314 Aare, to correspond with the details in the sale deed. Thereafter, the Respondents, aggrieved by this decision of the Board, instituted a Writ Petition before the Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. After a scrupulous examination of the facts and the legal aspects, the Learned Single Bench determined that the Appellant had indeed sold 0.314 hectares of land under Survey No. 219, which was later sold by Chaturbhuj Das to the Respondents. The review petition instituted by the Appellant before the Learned Single Judge was duly dismissed.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

  1. The Appellants, through their Counsel, contented that the word “Aare” was used instead of the word “Hectare” and that it was a crucial discrepancy in the sale deed.
  2. The Appellants, through their Counsel, contented that the Writ Appellate Court made an error in dismissing the Writ Appeal and that the conclusion drawn in the impugned order were inaccurate.
  3. The Appellants, through their Counsel, contented that therefore, the review petition should be granted and that the impugned order should be annulled.
  4. The Appellants, through their Counsel, contented that the appeal should be reconsidered from scratch

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their Counsel, contented that the sale deed executed by the Appellant evidently stated the land area as 0.314 Aare, which was then sold to them by Chaturbhuj Das and that the Appellant cannot now dispute the terms of the sale deed, especially since it was properly executed and accepted by all the parties involved in the present case.
  2. The Respondent, through their Counsel, contented that the attempt of the Appellant to ascribe the discrepancies in the sale deed to a clerical error lacks merit and that the decision to use “Aare” instead of “Hectare” was premeditated during the execution of the sale deed and cannot be revised at this stage.
  3. The Respondent, through their Counsel, contented that the review petition of the Appellant is merely an attempt to re-litigate issues already settled by the lower courts and that the Appellant has failed to furnish any new or significant evidence that would justify a review of the previous order.
  4. The Respondent, through their Counsel, contented that the order issued by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior and upheld by the Single Bench of the High Court relied on a scrupulous examination of the facts and applicable laws and that there is no evident error in the record that mandates a review of the judgment.
  5. The Respondent, through their Counsel, contented that granting the review petition would cause undue delays and violates the rights as purchasers of the land in this present case and that the court should not entertain the attempt of the Appellant to reopen the settled matters and the impugned order should remain as it is.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes for the permission for the review of the judgments based on the discovery of a new and significant matter or evidence, errors presumed on the face of record, or any other sufficient reason.
  2. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes Review
  3. Section 22(3)(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states that every application under this section must be made by a motion that is supported by an affidavit.

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of this case revolves around whether the grounds exhibited by the Appellant justify the review of the previous order?
  2. Whether the error presumed on the face of the record warrants the review of the judgment?
  3. Whether the sale deed stating “Aare” instead of “Hectare” comprises a sufficient reason for the review?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Govind Khandelwal Vs. Shri Suresh Khandelwal & Ors., analysed the provisions of the Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and other judicial precedents to understand the extent and the limitations of its review jurisdiction. The court stated that a review is different from an appeal and can only address blatant errors evident on the face of the records. The court in this case, observed that such errors should be probable without necessitating comprehensive investigation or inspection. In his case, the Appellant in the first instance relied on the discrepancies in the sale deed, where “Aare” was used instead of “Hectare” but the court stated that this discrepancy was apparent from the beginning and could have been brought up earlier in the legal proceedings. Moreover, the court observed that this error did not offer sufficient grounds for a review, especially since the sale deed had been properly executed and accepted by all the parties involved in the present case. Further, the court observed in the present case that the Appellant in the case failed to furnish any new or significant evidence that could justify revisiting the earlier order. The court, finally, determined that the grounds raised by the Appellant were insufficient to warrant the exercise of review judgment. Subsequently, the court dismissed the review petition, therefore, upholding the previous order issued by the Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

“Dismissing Defamation Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High court Rejects writ petition in Marriage Fraud lawsuit stating lack of substantiated evidence”

Blog, Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title – Bharat Singh Chouhan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Number – Writ Petition No. 7831 of 2024

Dated on – 12th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Bharat Singh Chouhan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Appellants, Bharat Singh Chouhan, Ram Singh Chouhan, Ankit Singh Chouhan and Kamala Devi Chouhan, through their Counsel, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Appellants claimed that the wedding between Ankit Singh Chouhan (Appellant No.3) and Kamnee Singh Chouhan (Respondent No.11), was held on the 11th of June,2023. However, it was discovered subsequently, that the Respondent No. 11 had misstated her educational qualification to Ankit Singh Chouhan. She purported that she had qualified her Class 12th, but later it was exposed that she only had the qualification till 10th grade. Consequently. Ankit Singh Chouhan lodged a complaint on various forums, alleging fraud in the marriage and seeking the registration of an offense under the Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, through an investigation it was detected by the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Mahila Thana, Katni, that there was no merit in the allegations and concluded that the wedding between Ankit Singh Chouhan and Kamnee Singh Chouhan was valid.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case, contented that the wedding between Ankit Singh Chouhan and Kamnee Singh Chouhan was conducted relying on the false pretext provided by the Respondent No.3 (Kamnee Singh Chouhan) concerning her educational qualification.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case, contented that the wedding constituted fraud under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which attracts legal actions against the Respondents.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case, repudiated the allegations made by the Appellants and contented that the wedding was valid under law and no offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 was committed.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case, contented that the Appellant was attempting to tarnish the reputation of the Mother-in-Law of Ankit Singh Chouhan, which they considered unjustified and defamatory and that it was an offense under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the power of the High Courts to issue writs.
  2. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 states the offense of Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
  3. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 governs the validity of the Hindu Marriages
  4. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 prescribes the list for grounds of divorce
  5. Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 prescribes Punishment for Defamation

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the case revolved around whether the misstatement of educational qualification in a marriage amounts to an offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860?
  2. Whether the accusation of corruption against the police officials and the defamation of the mother-in-law of Ankit Singh Chouhan were justified?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Bharat Singh Chouhan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, scrupulously analysed the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 and the Indian Penal Code,1860 regarding the accusations made by the Appellants. The court stated that the misstatement of the educational qualification in a marriage did not amount to fraud under the Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Moreover, the court did not find any grounds for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 based on such accusations. The court stated that it was sham and defamatory, laying accusations of corruption against the police official and the assassination of the character of the mother-in-law of Ankit Singh Chouhan. It accentuated that making unsubstantiated allegations against individuals or departments without any conclusive evidence was objectionable. The court, thus, dismissed the Writ Petition and imposed a cost of Rupees 25,000 on the Appellants for their superficial accusations. The Appellants were ordered to deposit the cost withing one month, failing which a contempt of court proceedings would be instituted against them.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment