Pushpalata vs Mishri Bai - 2012 Supreme(MP) 528

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(MP) 528

¼mPp U;k;ky;½ (HIGH COURT)
U;k- vfuy ‘kekZ
Anil Sharma, J.
iq”iyrk ¼Jherh½ fo- Jherh feJh ckbZ rFkk vU;
Pushpalata (Smt.) v. Smt. Mishri Bai and others
f}rh; vihy Øekad 117 lu~ 2006 ¼Xokfy;j½% izFke vij ftyk U;k;k/kh’k] f’koiqjh }kjk flfoy vihy Øekad 22&,@05 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 24-12-2005 ds fo#)(
fu.khZr fnukad 1-10-2012A
Second Appeal No. 117 of 2006 (Gwalior) against judgment and decree dated 24.12.2005 passed in Civil Appeal No. 22-A/05 by first Additional District Judge, Shivpuri;
Decided on 1.10.2012.

Advocates:
vfuy feJk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls( lquhy tSu izR;FkhZx.k Øekad 1 rFkk 2 dh vksj lsA
Anil Mishra for appellant; Sunil Jain for respondents No. 1 and 2.

Headnote:¼1½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 168] 169 rFkk 190 & mica/kksa ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk & /kkjk 168¼1½ ds mYya?ku esa iV~Vk & iV~Vk iznku djuk rFkk dCtk gksuk Lohd`r & iêsnkj dks ekS#lh d`”kd rFkk Hkwfe Lokeh vf/kdkj izksn~Hkwr & jktLo U;k;ky;ksa dks /kkjk 190 ds v/khu vkosnu dk fofu’p;u djus dh vuU; vf/kdkfjrk gS & flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk oftZr gSA ¼iSjk 17

       ¼2½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 257 ¼.k½ rFkk 190 & mica/kksa ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk & jktLo U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 190 ds v/khu ikfjr vkns’k & blds fo#) flfoy okn & pykus ;ksX; ugha & /kkjk 257¼.k½ ds v/khu flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk oftZr gSA 2000 jk-fu- 141¼mPpre U;k-½] 1976 ts ,y ts 278 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] 2001 jk-fu- 343 rFkk 2010¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 415 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 17

       ¼3½ flfoy ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 23 fu- 3 rFkk vk 23 fu- 3d & dk ykxw gksuk & jktLo U;k;ky; Lohdkjksfä ij vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k le>kSrk ij ugha & ,slk vkns’k le>kSrk vkns’k dh O;fIr esa ugha vkrk & blds fo#) gd dh ?kks”k.kk ds fy, flfoy okn & pykus ;ksX; ugha & vk- 23 fu- 3 rFkk fu- 3d ds mica/k vkdf”kZr ugha gksrsA ¼2007½7 ,l lh lh 482] ¼2008½1 ,e ih ,y ts 221 rFkk ¼2008½13 ,l lh lh 102 foosfprA ¼iSjk 12 ls 19

       ¼4½ flfoy ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 9 & flfoy okn & dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk & ifr }kjk eq[rkjukek /kkjd dh gSfl;r esa flfoy okn izLrqr fd;k x;k & ,slh gSfl;r esa dFku Hkh fd, x, & eq[rkjukek lk{; vfHkfyf[kr fd, tkus ds i’pkr~ fu”ikfnr fd;k & okn pykus ;ksX; ugha & D;ksafd ;g eq[rkjukek ds vHkko esa izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk & ,slk okn rFkk dFku vukf/k—r gSA ¼2005½2 ,l lh lh 217] 2012¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 536 rFkk ¼2011½11 ,l lh lh 524 foosfprA ¼iSjk 20 ls 22

       ¼5½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 & vuq- 58] 101 rFkk 65 & ?kks”k.kk ds fy, rFkk rglhynkj ds vkns’k ds vk{ksfir djrs gq, okn & ;|fi ,sls vkns’k dks vikLr djus ds fy, & izkFkZuk [kaM esa izkFkZuk ugha dh xbZ & ifjlhek 3 o”kZ gS & vuq- 65 esa izfrdwy dCtk ds fy, 12 o”kZ dh ifjlhek & ykxw ugha gksrh & rglhynkj ds vkns’k dh rkjh[k ls 3 o”kZ i’pkr~ okn le; oftZr gSA ¼2007½1 e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 53 rFkk ¼2010½ 2 ,l lh lh 194 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 23 ls 25

       ¼6½ Lkk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 115 & foca/k dk fl)kar & dk ykxw gksuk & Lohdkjksfä ij rglhynkj dk vkns’k & vuqikyu esa ukekarj.k gks x;k & fookfnr Hkwfe ij uy&dwi ifjfufeZr & rglhynkj ds vkns’k dks ukekarj.k ds 7 o”kZ i’pkr~ Hkh vk{ksfir ugha fd;k x;k & oknhx.k dk dk;Z mudks rglhynkj dk vk{ksfir djus ls jksdus ds fy, i;kZIr gS & foca/k dk fl)kar ykxw gksxkA ¼iSjk 26

       ¼7½ flfoy ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 96 rFkk 100 & foi;ZLrrk & dk vFkZ & fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk oknhx.k dh Lohdkjksfä rFkk eq[rkjukek dh vuos{kk dj okn fMØh fd;k x;k & ,sls fu”d”kZ foi;ZLrrk gSa & f}rh; vihy esa gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2011½11 ,l lh lh 628 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 27

       ¼8½ flfoy ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 100 & fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz’u & ls vfHkizk; & iz’u ^^D;k fo}ku vihy U;k;ky; us oknh }kjk dh xbZ Lohdkjksfä dh vuos{kk dj okn fMØh djus esa =qfV dh gS^^ & oknhx.k }kjk jktLo U;k;ky; ds le{k dh xbZ Lohdkjksfä & mu ij vkc)dj & fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk ,slh Lohdkjksfä dh vuos{kk dj okn fMØh fd;k x;k & iz’u tSlk fojfpr fd;k x;k gS dsoy fof/k dk iz’u ugha & ;g fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz’u gSA vkb ,y vkj ¼2009½ e-iz- 1402 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 29
       (1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 168, 169 and 190 -- jurisdiction under -- lease in contravetion of section 168(1) -- grant of lease and possession admitted -- rights of occupancy tenant and Bhumiswami accrued to lessee -- revenue Courts have exclusive jurisdiction for deciding application under section 190 -- jurisdiction of civil Court is barred. [Para 17
       (2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 257 (O.) 190 -- jurisdiction under -- order passed under section 190 by revenue Court -- civil suit against it -- not maintainable -- jurisdiction by civil Court is barred under section 257(O.). 2000 RN 141 (SC), 1976 JLJ 278 (FB) 2001 RN 343 and 2010 (4) MPLJ 415 distinguished. [Para 17
       (3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 23 R.3 and O. 23 R.3A -- applicability of -- order passed by revenue Court on admission and not on compromise -- such order not fall within scope of compromise order -- civil suit against it for declaration of title -- not maintainable -- provisions of O. 23 R.3 and R.3A not attracted. (2007)7 SCC 482, (2008)1 MPLJ 221 and (2008)13 SCC 102 discussed. [Paras 12 to 19
       (4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 9 -- civil suit -- maintainability of -- suit filed by husband in capacity of power of attorney holder -- statement also deposited in such capacity -- power of attorney executed after recording evidence -- suit is not maintainable -- because it was filed in absence of power of attorney -- such suit and deposition is unauthorised. (2005)2 SCC 217, 2012(2) MPLJ 536 and (2011)11 SCC 524 discussed. [Paras 20 to 22
       (5) Limitation Act, 1963 -- Arts. 58, 101 and 65 -- suit for declaration and challenging order of Tahsildar -- although for setting aside such order -- not prayed in prayer clause -- limitation is three years -- limitation of 12 years in Art. 65 for adverse possession -- not applied -- suit after 3 years from date of order of Tahsildar is barred by time. 2007 (1) MPWN 53 and (2010) 2 SCC 194 distinguished. [Paras 23 to 25
       (6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 115 -- principle of estoppel -- applicability of -- order of Tahsildar on admission -- mutation took place in compliance -- tubewell erected on disputed land -- order of Tahsildar not challenged even after 7 years of mutation -- act of plaintiffs is sufficient to prevent them from challenging order of Tahsildar -- principle of estoppel will be applied. [Para 26
       (7) Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss. 96 and 100 -- perversity -- meaning of -- suit decreed by lower appellate Court overlooking admission and power of attorney of plaintiffs -- such findings are perverse -- interference can be made in second appeal. (2011)11 SCC 628 distinguished. [Para 27
       (8) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 100 -- substantial question of law -- means of -- question “whether learned appellate Court has erred in decreeing suit overlooking admission made by plaintiff” -- admission made by plaintiffs before revenue Court -- binding on them -- suit decreed by lower appellate Court overlooking such admission -- question as framed is not mere question of law -- it is substantial question of law. ILR (2009) MP 1402 distinguished. [Para 29

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal has been filed under section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2005 passed in Civil Appeal No. 22-A/05 by learned First Additional District Judge, Shivpuri, M.P. reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.5.2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 7-A/04 by Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Sheopur, M.P.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction with respect to land bearing survey No. 230/1 area 1.672 hectare and survey No. 447 area 0.058 hectare situated at village Fatehpur, District Shivpuri. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the disputed land was purchased by them through registered sale deed in the year 1990-91 and behind the back of the plaintiffs, land has been got recorded by defendants No. 1 to 3 in the revenue record on the basis of order passed by Tahsildar on 27.7.1995 which was illegal, therefore, suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 did not file written statement in the trial Court. Defendent No. 3/appellant has filed the written statement alongwith counter claim seeking the relief of Bhumiswami rights as well as injunction alleging that the land in question was given by the plaintiffs to defendant No. 3 on lease and possession was also handed over to the defendant, therefore, the defendant was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute and only on the basis of admission made by plaintiffs, the order was passed by the Tahsildar while exercising the powers under section 190 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The civil suit is not maintainable and by dismissing the suit, defendant No. 3 be declared Bhumiswami of the suit land.

4. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.4.2005 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs as well as the counter claim filed by the defendant. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, plaintiffs have filed appeal against dismissal of their suit and defendant has also filed appeal against dismissal of her counter claim. Learned appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and the appeal filed by the defendant has been dismissed. Therefore, appellant-defendant No.3 has filed this appeal on the ground that learned lower appellate Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment and decree overlooking the fact that under the provisions of sections 168, 169 and 190 of the Code, right of Bhumiswami has been perfected to the defendant and the order passed by the Tahsildar in this regard has attained finality and same cannot be challenged in the suit. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was itself not maintainable as the plaintiffs have not challenged the order passed by the Tahsildar nor filed any appeal against the order passed by Tahsildar under the provisions of the Act. The order passed by Tahsildar was based on compromise between the parties and same could not be challenged before civil Court and the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of order XXIII Rule 3-A of CPC.

5. Following substantial question of law have been framed by the Court vide order dated 17.2.2006:-

(i) Whether, the suit filed by plaintiff would be held to be maintainable in view order 23 rule 3-A of CPC ?

(ii) Whether, the first appellate Court erred in holding that the suit of of the plaintiff/respondent is within limitation?

(iii) Whether learned appellate Court has erred in decreeing suit overlooking admission made by plaintiff ?

REGARDING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW NO.1

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has drawn attention of this Court towards the fact that appellant/defendant No. 3 has been declared Bhumiswami of the suit land survey Nos. 230/1 area 1.672 hectare and survey No. 447 area 0.058 hectare situated at village Fatehpur, District Shivpuri by the order dated 27.7.1995 passed by Tahsildar, certified copy of which i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday