The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued notice on an appeal filed by Hemlata Singh and her son challenging the rejection of their application for temporary injunction in a property dispute concerning Datia Fort, an estate associated with the former Majaraj of Datia. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 374]

The bench of Justice Amit Seth observed,

"At this stage, Shri Visoriya appearing on caveat on behalf of respondent No.1(a), has entered appearance and filed short response. Accordingly, service of notice on respondent No.1(a) is waived. Process fee for service of notice upon remaining respondents be paid within a period of seven working days, returnable within six weeks. List after six weeks for further consideration. Till next date of hearing, the parties shall not alienate the suit land or create any third-party rights therein".

The civil suit was filed by the appellants before the Trial Court seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding the suit properties. According to the petition, the dispute concerned Datia Fort, Seondha Fort and Peeli Kothi. The appellant alleged that after institution of the present suit, the defendants began disposing of the property and altering its nature, prompting them to seek interim protection.

Before the High Court, the petition stated that the Trial Court failed to consider that an interim injunction was already granted in another suit involving the same parties regarding agricultural land. The petition stated that the present suit concerned non-agricultural property, commonality of parties, and an alleged ancestral estate warranting consistent interim protection.

The petition further claimed that allowing the respondents to alienate or encumber the disputed properties during pendency of the suit could result in creation of third-party rights and multiplicity of litigation. The petition maintained that preservation of the existing position was necessary to ensure that any eventual decree did not become ineffective because of subsequently tranctions involving third parties.

The appellants alleged that the respondents had relied upon purported family partition or settlement but had not produced the documents allegedly supporting that claim. They also challenged the respondents' reliance on a photocopy of an alleged Will of January 7, 1951, contending that the Original Will has not been produced or proved. Relying on the revenue proceedings, the appellants claimed that these records contradict the respondents' position regarding their possession.

The appellants also alleged that an assault had taken place within the fort precincts and an FIR was registered. It was contended that the alleged incident demonstrated the need for protection of both litigants and the disputed property. These allegations, however, have not been adjudicated upon in the September 15 order of the High Court.

The appellants have sought setting aside of the trial court's March 24, 2026 order and an injunction restraining the respondents from carrying out further construction, altering heritage structures, and creating their party interests.

The court directed that notice be issued to the respondents at the stage of admission. Further, the court passed an interim protection that the parties shall not alienate the suit land or create third-party rights therein until the next date of hearing.

Case Title: Hemlata v. Rajendra Singh Judev, MA-3385-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 374

For Appellants: Advocate Gaurav Mishra

For Respondent: Advocate Pratap Visoriya

For State: Government Advocate Dileep Awasthi

Click here to read/download the Order