Smt.Sarwat Jahan Begam vs The State Of M.P. & Ors.
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
1
F.A. No.556 of 1996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
FIRST APPEAL NO.556 of 1996
SMT. SARWAT JAHAN BEGAM
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Saxena – Advocate for appellant.
Shri Aditya Choubey – Government Advocate with Shri K.K. Gautam
– Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
(Reserved on 24.06.2026)
(Pronounced on: 04.08.2026)
The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and
decree dated 31.08.1996 passed by the trial Court of Ist Additional
District Judge, Bhopal (MP) in Civil Suit No.72/A/89, whereby the suit
for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the State has
been dismissed. In the said suit, prayer was also made for recovery of
possession of part of property which was stated to be in illegal
possession of the respondents/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
2
F.A. No.556 of 1996
2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are
that a suit has been filed by the deceased plaintiff namely Smt. Sarwat
Jahan Begam on the assertion that she is owner and in possession of the
suit property, bearing Survey No.2490 area 24960 square feet situated
at Idgah Hills, near Kaisar Bungalow, Bhopal. It was stated by her that
the said property was gifted to the plaintiff from her mother-in-law Smt.
Nazma Begam by way of oral Hiba in the year 1971. It was further
stated that the plaintiff has sold certain plots to different purchasers, but
on the remaining land she had an intention to construct a building and,
therefore, obtained no objection certificate from the Nazul Department.
The office of the Public Works Department is just adjacent to plaintiff's
remaining open land, however, the Public Works Department has
illegally encroached upon some portion of the property which was
vacant land attached to the bungalow. It was contended that the
defendants/PWD Department of the State has constructed some sheds
etc. in the land which is on the portion of 21 x 61 feet. On these
assertions, she pleaded that her title be declared on the property and the
illegal construction put up by the respondents/defendants be
demolished and she be given vacant possession of the portion under
encroachment of the defendants and further permanent and prohibitory
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
3
F.A. No.556 of 1996
injunction be granted against the defendants restraining them from
entering into or interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in
perpetuity. The said suit was filed on 30.05.1989 and thereafter
evidence of the parties was recorded and in the course of evidence, the
plaintiff stated that the source of title is that the name of her father-in-
law was Badre Alam who was son of one Meher Parwar Sultan
popularly known as “Kokobia” who was elder sister of Shahbano
Memuna Sultan, who was wife of Ex-Ruler of Bhopal State namely
Nawab Hamidullah Khan. Nawab Hamidullah Khan had given the
bungalow and attached land to Kokobia alias Mehar Parwar Sultan
being the elder sister of his wife and the son of Kokobia alias Meher
Parwar Sultan was Badre Alam and the plaintiff is daughter-in-law of
Badre Alam. On these assertions, the source of title was asserted and it
was contended that declaration be granted and relief of recovery of
possession of the portion under encroachment be given and further
relief of permanent exemption be granted.
3. The plaintiff relied on various documents to prove the aforesaid
case of the plaintiff but ultimately the suit was dismissed by the trial
Court holding that the plaintiff has proved her title to the suit property
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
4
F.A. No.556 of 1996
and, therefore, the suit has been dismissed against which the plaintiff is
before this Court in appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that the
suit was founded on Ex.P-29 and as per Ex.P-29, the bungalow and land
was given to Mehar Parwar Sultan sometime in the year 1931. The said
document has been disbelieved by the trial Court only on the ground
that the said document does not contain any seal of the Ruler or the
Secretary of erstwhile princely State/Bhopal, or any other person of the
concerned Department of Bhopal State. It is a document written on
plain paper and illegible signatures do not contain the name or
designation of the authority that has marked the said signatures.
Therefore, the said document cannot be taken into consideration to
prove the title of the plaintiff.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that during the course
of hearing of the suit various substantial documents could not have been
placed on record and various such documents have been placed on
record along with a number of applications under Order 41 Rule 27
CPC which have been filed before this Court from time to time during
the period this appeal has been pending before this Court in the last 30
years. It is argued that one application is IA No.2977/2015 and along
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
5
F.A. No.556 of 1996
with the said application the plaintiff has filed merger agreement
between Bhopal State and the Government of India as per which a list
of private properties of the Ex-Ruler of Bhopal is given. The bungalow
in question falls at serial No.6 of the list of private properties of His
Highness Nawab Mohammad Hamidullah Khan personally. Therefore,
it is clear that in this property the State had no right, title or interest.
This document was not available with the plaintiff at the time of hearing
of the suit and this document be taken into consideration in appeal or
the matter be remanded back to the trial Court to take evidence as to
this document and to decide the suit afresh.
6. Further reliance is placed on documents filed along with IA No.
1150 of 2002 which is also an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
along with which the Nikahnama of plaintiff has been placed on record
to prove the fact that the plaintiff is wife of Tariq Alam who was the
son of Badre Alam and, therefore, the line of genealogy is sought to be
established by this Nikahnama. Along with this IA another document
has been placed on record, which is a document dated 28.11.1938
written in Urdu along with its Hindi translation, as per which Mehar
Parwar Sultan has been granted some land at Bhopal for the purpose of
residence and is stated to be signed by Secretary, Robkari Khas, Bhopal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
6
F.A. No.556 of 1996
State. It is argued that this document duly cures the defects in Ex.P-29
which was filed before the trial Court and therefore, the matter can be
remanded back to the trial Court to take evidence as to this document
dated 28.11.1938 and also the Nikahnama dated 22.05.1958 which
would prove the source of title as well as the genealogy of the
plaintiff.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that in this
appeal, an application for amendment in plaint has been filed under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to further clarify the genealogy of the plaintiff
and this application be allowed and since this application is bona fide
in nature, therefore, after allowing this application for amendment in
the plaint, the matter be remanded back to the trial Court for
adjudication afresh.
8. It is argued that since the matter involves consideration of very
old documents some of which could not be caught hold by the
appellant/plaintiff at the time of adjudication of the suit, therefore, these
documents being material and substantial in nature, be taken into
consideration and the matter be remanded back to the trial Court for
proving the said documents and deciding the suit afresh on the basis of
such documents.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
7
F.A. No.556 of 1996
9. Per contra , it is contended by learned counsel for the State that
the source of title of the appellant is utterly shrouded in mystery and
even the genealogy is shrouded in mystery. The plaintiff/appellant
nowhere in the pleadings has clear cut mentioned that her father-in-law
Badre Alam was son of Mehar Parwar Sultan. There is no clear
assertion even in the plaint or even in the amendment application.
Though during the course of deposition before the trial Court, the
original plaintiff stated that her father-in-law namely Badre Alam was
the son of Mehar Parwar Sultan alias Kokobia but there is no pleading
to that effect and even in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC,
the plaintiff has stopped short of mentioning in clear terms that Badre
Alam was the son of Kokobia alias Mehar Parwar Sultan. Only one
ambiguous genealogy chart has been typed in the said application. It is
further argued that even if the grant order Ex.P-29 so also the document
dated 28.11.1938 sought to be relied along with the application under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is accepted at its face value, even then the status
of Kokobia alias Mehar Parwar Sultan would only be of licensee who
has been given the bungalow for residential purpose. It is argued that it
has come on record in evidence that Badre Alam was Collector of a
District under Bhopal State and the bungalow was given for residence
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
8
F.A. No.556 of 1996
of the said person as Collector. Now the said person has started
claiming rights through some persons of royal family of erstwhile
Bhopal State and have started stressing their title on the property though
it was just a bungalow given to the then Collector for residential
purposes and he was Collector of a District within the erstwhile Bhopal
State.
10. This Court has heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length
and perused the record.
11. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff, namely Smt. Sarwar
Jahan Begam on the assertion that she has succeeded the
property by oral Hiba of her mother-in-law, namely, Smt. Nazma
Begam, wife of Badre Alam. She did not state any source of
title of Badre Alam and no any relationship of Badre Alam
with the erstwhile Ruler of Bhopal or any relative of Ruler of Bhopal
was pleaded in the plaint. However, when she entered the witness box,
then the plaintiff stated that the name of her father-in-law was Badre
Alam who was son of elder sister of Shahbano Memuna Sultan, who
was the wife of the then Ruler of Bhopal. It was stated by her that the
then Ruler had gifted the house along with attached land to Mehar
Parwar Sultan being the sister of his wife and the survey number of land
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
9
F.A. No.556 of 1996
is 2490. However, there is no pleading anywhere in the plaint that Badre
Alam was in any manner related to the wife of Ex Ruler of Bhopal or
the sister of wife of Ex Ruler of Bhopal. The said portion of the
deposition of plaintiff was put to cross-examination and in paragraph
11 of her deposition, she stated that after the plaint had been written, it
was read out to her, but she cannot state the reason that why the
relationship of Badre Alam with the then Ruler of Bhopal has not been
pleaded in the plaint. She denied the suggestion that Kokobia alias
Meher Parwar Sultan and Memuna Sultan were not related to the
plaintiff.
12. In the plaint there is no genealogy of Badre Alam to project his
relationship to the then Ruler of Bhopal. The genealogy is absent in
plaint, but in the application for amendment in plaint filed before this
Court on 30.08.2001, a genealogy has been mentioned. As per this
genealogy, Badre Alam has been mentioned to be son of Mehar Parwar
Sultan and her husband Sultan Alam. Apart from this, there is no
whisper in the suit, that what is the source of title of Badre Alam. The
genealogy sought to be inserted by way of amendment application is as
under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
10
F.A. No.556 of 1996
"3(a) The following is the genealogy of the parties.
Nawab Hameedullah Khan
Ex-Ruler of Bhopal State
Shah Bano Memuna Sultan
W/o Nawab Hameedulla Khan
Mehar Parwar Sultan (Koka Bia)
(Sister of Shah Bano) (Sultan Alam)
(Husband)
Badre Alam = Najma Begam
(wife of Badre Alam)
Tarique Alam
Sarwat Jahan w/o Tarique Alam
(Plaintiff) (Married on 7th Feb: 1958)”
13. From the aforesaid genealogy, it is sought to be mentioned that
Badre Alam was the son of Mehar Parwar Sultan, who was sister of
Shah Bano Memuna Sultan, the wife of Ex-Ruler of Bhopal. The
original ancestor is named as Nawab Hameedullah Khan, who was the
Ex-Ruler of Bhopal State and beneath him the name of these two ladies
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
11
F.A. No.556 of 1996
is mentioned who are real sisters and beneath that the name of
Badre Alam is mentioned without mentioning that from whom Badre
Alam has been descended, i.e. either from Memuna Sultan or from
Mehar Parwar Sultan and her husband Sultan Alam. From this
genealogy, it appears that the plaintiff now claims to be direct
descendant of Nawab Hamidullah Khan, the Ex-Ruler of Bhopal,
though no clear assertion is made anywhere else in
the amendment.
14. During the course of arguments on 24.6.2026, the counsel for the
appellant had uploaded a synopsis of the case in the reference section
of digital file and also provided a photocopy of that synopsis across the
Bar to this Court. In the said synopsis, the family tree has been
mentioned wherein Badre Alam is mentioned as son of Shahbano
Memuna Sultan, wife of Ex-Ruler. Therefore, now the plaintiff claims
that Badre Alam was in fact the son of the then Ruler of Bhopal, which
was never the case in the plaint nor in the statement of the original
plaintiff. When this Court pointed out this fact to the counsel for
appellant during the course of hearing, then counsel for appellant
categorically replied to this Court that the plaintiff now claims that
Badre Alam was the son of then Ruler of Bhopal and all earlier
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
12
F.A. No.556 of 1996
pleadings contrary to that effect are erroneous. He stated that he is
having instructions to argue the appeal in this manner by the legal
representatives. This was so stated despite the position that it was
pointed out to learned counsel that in the deposition, original plaintiff
had stated Badre Alam to be son of Sultan Alam and Mehar parwar
Sultan (Koka Bia).
15. After the case was reserved for judgment, the synopsis initially
filed has been deleted and a new synopsis has been uploaded and this
time mentioning Badre Alam to be son of Mehar Parwar Sultan. This
Court has called for information from IT Section, and as per the said
information, the First Synopsis was uploaded at 15:44:29 on 24.6.2026.
It was deleted at 20:11:39 on same date, i.e. 24.6.2026. Then second
Synopsis was uploaded at 20:12:05 on 24.6.2026. The deleted file has
been retrieved by the IT Cell, and a hard copy thereof was also supplied
to this Court across the bar at time of hearing. Front pages of these two
synopses are as under:-
A. The Synopsis uploaded at 15:44:29 but deleted at 20:11:39 on
same date, on 24.6.2026, and relied before the Court at time of hearing
had the following chart : -
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
13
F.A. No.556 of 1996
B. The Synopsis uploaded at 20:12:05 on 24.6.2026, containing
changed name of mother of Badre Alam :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
14
F.A. No.556 of 1996
16. The attempt by the appellant in first filing one synopsis of the
case and arguing on the basis of that synopsis and after the case is
reserved for judgment, then deleting that synopsis and filing another
synopsis, changing their stand only shows the malicious intent of the
appellant/plaintiff and nothing else. Though this is a direct attempt with
obstruction with administration of justice but this Court refrains from
taking any stern action in the matter, except from advising the counsel
to desist from such mischievous acts in future.
17. Be that as it may be, there is no clear assertion in the application
for amendment in plaint filed before this Court in the year 2001 that
Badre Alam was the son of which of the two ladies. Even in the
application for amendment, nothing has been mentioned that how the
plaintiff is related to Badre Alam. The entire application for amendment
is as under:-
“IN THE HIGH СOUNT DE JUDICATURE AT
JABALPUR
First Appeal No.556/96
APPELLANT : Serwat Jahan.
PLAINTIFF
Versus
RESPONDENTS : State of M.P. and others.
DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17, C.P.C.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
15
F.A. No.556 of 1996
In view of some material facts regarding the relationship of the
appellant with her in-laws by virtue of which she is owner of suit
house, The appellant wants to amend the plaint to following effect.
1. Add the following as para (1)(a) in the plant:-
“1(a) That the suit property was given to Mehar Perwar
Sultan w/o Sultan Alam on 18.11.1931 by ‘Inayatnana
(grant) by Ex-Ruler Hameedulla Khan Nawab of Bhopal
vide Ex.P.29 bearing khasra No.2488 to 2490 with the
Bangalow known as ‘Kaiser Banglow by which the full
owner-ship was given to Mahar Parwer Sultan, the real
sister of the wife of Ex-Ruler namely Shah Bano Memuna
Sultan"
"Subsequently vide Inayatnana dated 28.11.1938
the old grant dt.19.11.1931 was confirmed and the entire
property was given in the possession of Meher Perwar
Sultan Saheba including the houses and property in
Public Works Deptt. This grant bears the signature of
Secretary “Khas of His Highness Nawab of Bhopal and
bears the seal of the office.”
2. Add the following 1(B) in the plaint:-
1.(B). That the affidavit of late Shah Bano Memuna Sultan
proved as Ex.P-88 also supports the case of the plaintiff for the
grant of grant made in respect of suit land in favour of her elder
sister Mehar Parwar Sultan. For proof of the said document
Shah Bano Memuna Sultan could not be examined to support
the grant because the said lady was not alive at the time of
evidence as she had died on 14.5.1982 and as such it was not
possible to examine her”
3. Add the following genealogy at the end of para 3(a) of the
plaint:
“3(a) The following is the genealogy of the parties.
Nawab Hameedullah Khan
Ex-Ruler of Bhopal State
Shah Bano Memuna Sultan
W/o Nawab Hameedulla Khan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
16
F.A. No.556 of 1996
Mehar Parwar Sultan (Koka Bia)
(Sister of Shah Bano) (Sultan Alam)
(Husband)
Badre Alam = Najma Begam
(wife of Badre Alam)
Tarique Alam
Sarwat Jahan w/o Tarique Alam
(Plaintiff) (Married on 7th Feb: 1958)”
4. Add the existing para 3 as para 3(b) in the plant.
5. Add the following as para 4(b) treating existing para as 4(a) in
the plaint.
“4(b) By grant of No Objection Certificate does not mean that the
plaintiff is not the owner of the property and the property
cannot be treated as of Government. The N.O.C. is only
required for mutation of the sold property in the name of the
Vendees in the Nazul record”.
6. Add the following as para 5(b) treating the existing para 5 as
5(a) in the plaint:
“5(b) That it will not be out of way to mention that the suit
land covers the Kaiser Bunglow and its sorrounding land bears
Revenue survey no.2470 with an area 24960 sq.ft. shown in
para 1 of the plaint. The residential portion of the Kaiser
bunglow is known as “Alam Lodge” because it was the private
property of Mehar Parwar Sultan w/o Shah Alam. So the
Kaiser Bungalow is also popularly known as “Alam Lodge”
which is clear from various letters and notices were received
in that name. So it cannot be said that Alam Lodge is some
different building, and similarly the residence of Badre Alam
the father in-law of the plaintiff cannot be called the land of
late Nawab of Bhopal or Govt. land and it can not be treated
as license given to late Badre Alam.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
17
F.A. No.556 of 1996
5.(c) Add the following as para 5(c).
“5(c) That the plaintiff and her in-laws having been in
continuous possession of the ‘Kaser bunglow/Alam lodge and
surrounding land are in possessory title since 1931 and have
perfected their possessory title for over 60 years.
Moreover the plaintiff and her in-laws have perfected
any defect n her title by law of adverse possession to the
knowledge of the defendants.”
7. That the amendment sought for is necessary for the proper
decision of the case and it does not change the nature of the
suit.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to allow the proposed amendment in the ends of justice.
JABALPUR (A.S. USMANI)
DATED: 30-10-2001 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT”
18. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff has been taking inconsistent
stands before the trial Court and this Court at different points of time
and there is no real document available with the plaintiff to establish
the relation of Badre Alam with the sister of wife of Ex-Ruler of
Bhopal. It seems to be that for this reason no clear assertion has been
made either in the plaint or in the application for amendment and,
therefore, it is not a fit case where this Court should remand the matter
back to the trial Court only for the reason that an amendment
application in plaint has been filed before this Court.
19. In the amendment application, a new pleading has been sought to
be inserted, that the suit land covers “Kaiser Bungalow” also. This is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
18
F.A. No.556 of 1996
utterly contrary to the assertions made in the plaint, whereby in para-1,
it was categorically mentioned that the suit property is “near” Kaiser
Bungalow, Bhopal. This Para-1 also mentions the four boundaries of
the suit land, and it is clearly mentioned that to the North, there is
“Boundary wall of Kaiser Bungalow”. Even the plaint map clearly
depicts that Kaiser Bungalow is to the North of the suit land. Therefore,
the entire case is being attempted to be changed. Earlier, as per plaint,
the suit land was projected to be a land separate from Kaiser Bungalow,
and towards South of that Bungalow. Now only to connect the
documents filed alongwith applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC,
the suit description and identity of the suit property is being sought to
be modified to be part of Kaiser Bungalow.
20. The plaintiffs had relied on document Ex.P-29 which seems to be
a grant for residential purposes made to one Mehar Parwar Sultan.
However, in the absence of pleading anything in clear terms regarding
relation of the father-in-law of the plaintiff with Mehar Parwar Sultan,
nothing turns on the basis of this document. Even otherwise, the trial
Court has held that this document does not contain any seal of any
competent authority of Bhopal State and furthermore even if this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
19
F.A. No.556 of 1996
document is taken at its face value, then it can at best be taken to be a
license to reside in the premises and it is not a title document.
21. The plaintiff had tried to rely on an affidavit given by Late
Shahbano Memuna Sultan who was the wife of Ex-Ruler of Bhopal in
some other suit before the Fourth Additional District Judge, Bhopal and
executed somewhere in June, 1981.
22. Even as per this affidavit Ex.P-88, though it is mentioned that one
Badre Alam is the son of sister of this lady but in the same affidavit, it
is stated that Badre Alam has only limited interest in the house and
whatever interest Badre Alam was having has devolved on Tarique
Alam (i.e. husband of the plaintiff) and further in para 9 it has been
mentioned that neither Tarique Alam nor any other co-sharer is absolute
owner of the disputed house. There is nothing to infer that this affidavit
is in relation to same property which is the suit property in this case.
23. Even this affidavit was filed in some other proceedings, and
nothing has been placed on record by the plaintiff that what ultimately,
happened to the said suit that had been filed by one Shahzadi Amna
Sultan.
24. Even the documents filed along with various applications under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC which is merger agreement would at the most
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
20
F.A. No.556 of 1996
indicate that bungalow near Cambridge School at present occupied by
Kokobia is the private property of the Ruler. However, no definite
relationship with Kokobia has been pleaded by the plaintiff in the
plaint, or even in the amendment application. Furthermore, as per Para-
1 of the plaint and the plaint map, the property “Kaiser Bungalow” is
to the North of the suit land, and there is no bungalow on the suit
land.
25. So far as the Nikahnama is concerned, it may at the most indicate
that the original plaintiff was the daughter-in-law of one Badre Alam.
However, in absence of any specific pleading of relationship of Badre
Alam with Mehar Parwar Sultan alias Kokobia, nothing can be deduced
on the basis of said document and it is not a fit case to remand the matter
back to the trial Court only on the strength of such documents filed
along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
26. The plaintiff, as already noted above, has been taking inconsistent
stands as to the genealogy of Badre Alam and looking to such
inconsistent stands of the plaintiff, this Court does not find any error in
the impugned judgment of the trial Court in holding that no relationship
with Mehar Parwar Sultan or Shahbano Memuna Sultan could be
established by the plaintiff and no document of conferment of title to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
21
F.A. No.556 of 1996
any ancestor of the plaintiff could be conclusively established by the
plaintiff.
27. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the trial Court committed no error in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit
by the impugned judgment. The documents sought to be filed with the
application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC do not advance the plaintiff’s
case. For the reasons stated above in detail, the application for
amendment of the plaint is also rejected.
28. Before parting with the matter, it is necessary to issue certain
directions regarding the manner in which the synopsis, on the basis of
which the case was argued, was substituted by counsel after the matter
had been reserved. The Registrar (I.T.) of this Court is directed to
ensure that, henceforth, any document once uploaded by a party or
counsel in the “reference” tab of the digital file cannot be deleted by
any party or counsel, except with the specific permission of the Court.
The information contained in the note-sheets dated 01.07.2026 and
02.07.2026, sent by the Registrar (I.T.) to this Court, shall form part of
the record of this file.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46
22
F.A. No.556 of 1996
29. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed . The impugned
judgment and decree of the Trial Court is confirmed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 04-08-2026
18:35:46