Mukesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(SC) 1235

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1235

J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Mukesh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Christi Jain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V.v.v. Pattabhiram, D.A.G. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Chinmoy Chaitanya, Adv. Ms. Chhavi Khandelwal, Adv. Ms. Shruti Verma, Adv. Mr. Rajan K Chaurasia, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the Order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore¹[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition bearing No.3317 of 2019 filed by the appellant herein. By the said order, the High Court upheld the order dated 23.08.2016 passed by the Collector of Stamps, determining stamp duty at Rs.6,67,500/- payable by the appellant qua land in Survey No.2087, 2088/9/1/1 measuring an extent of 0.076 Ares situated at Village Kheda, Tehsil Badnawar, District Dhar²[Hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”], acquired by him by way of consent decree, as affirmed by the Board of Revenue by order dated 12.02.2019

3. Originally, the appellant had filed a Civil Suit bearing No.47-A/2013 before the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-2, Badnawar, for declaration and permanent injunction against one Abhay Kumar (Respondent No.2 herein) and the State of Madhya Pradesh (Respondent No.1 herein) stating that he is the owner of the subject land and is in long and continuous possession of the same by doing cultivation. It was alleged in the said suit that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. There are no phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "overruled by," or similar language that suggest a negative treatment or disapproval in subsequent judgments. Therefore, based on the provided information, no case law from this list is identified as bad law.

[Followed/Supported:

<00100081012>: The case discusses the interpretation of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, and references a judgment of this Court in Mukesh v. (though the full context is not provided, the mention suggests it relies on or supports existing legal interpretation).

<00100064539>: Clarifies legal principles regarding registration of compromise decrees involving immovable property, indicating it aligns with established law regarding registration exemptions.

<00100063802>: Explains the legal consequence of adverse possession after 12 years, which appears to be a reaffirmation of well-established principles rather than a deviation or disapproval.

<00100074064>: Describes the nature of family settlements and their enforceability, likely reflecting accepted legal doctrine.]

[Distinguished/Clarified:

None of the cases explicitly state they have distinguished or clarified other cases.]

[Legal Principles Confirmed/Restated:

All cases seem to restate or clarify existing legal principles rather than overturn or criticize prior law.]

None of the cases exhibit ambiguous treatment based solely on the provided descriptions. The language used indicates they are discussing legal principles or interpretations without indicating subsequent negative treatment or overrules. However, the lack of explicit references to subsequent treatment limits the certainty of their current standing.]

**Source :** Arun Rameshchand Arya VS Parul Singh - Supreme Court MOHAMMADE YUSUF VS RAJKUMAR - Supreme Court Ravinder Kaur Grewal VS Manjit Kaur - Supreme Court Bhoop Singh VS Ram Singh Major - Supreme Court Ripudaman Singh VS Tikka Maheshwar Chand - Supreme Court Khushi Ram VS Nawal Singh - Supreme Court