Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 54
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya, J.
Anuradha Agarwal (Smt.) and others v. Jiwaji
University and others
First Appeal No.19 of 2003 (Gwalior); against judgment and decree dated 23.12.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.12-A/2001 by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Gwalior; Decided on 2.2.2017.
P. C. Chandil for appellants No.1 to 4;
N. K. Gupta with Sanjay Sharma for appellants No.5 and 6;
S. K. Bajpayea, Tapan Trivedi and O. P. Mathur for respondent No.1; Prashant Sharma for respondent No.5; Kamal Jain, Government Advocate and Ms. Sudha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.8/State.
Headnote: ¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 11 & iwoZ U;k; dk fl)kar & dk ykxw gksuk & gd~ ?kks"k.kk vkSj dCtk okilh dk iwoZrj okn jkT; ljdkj ds fo#) fMØh fd;k x;k & ,slh fMØh mPpre U;k;ky; rd fLFkj j[kh xbZ vkSj vafre gks xbZ & oknhx.k us okn Hkwfe fMØh /kkjd ls Ø; dh & oknhx.k }kjk gd~ dh ?kks"k.kk] LFkk;h O;kns'k vkSj dCtk okilh ds fy, okn & fo'ofo|ky; dk nkok & fd fo'ofo|ky; }kjk mPp U;k;ky; Hkou ds fuekZ.k ds fy, nh xbZ Hkwfe ds cnys esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk okn Hkwfe fo'ofo|ky; dks vkcafVr dh Fkh & fo'ofo|ky; dk dCtk gS & iwoZrj fMØh iwoZ U;k; ds :i esa izofrZr gksxh & ,slh fMØh fopkj.k U;k;ky; ij vkc)dj Fkh & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us okn [kkfjt djus esa =qfV dh gS & mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vihy eatwj dh xbZ vkSj okn fMØh fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 16 ls 18 ,oa 29½
¼2½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 & /kkjk 52 & fopkjk/khu okn dk fl)kar & dk ykxw gksuk & iwoZrj okn yafcr jgrs & jkT; ljdkj }kjk okn Hkwfe fo'ofo|ky; dks vkcafVr fd;k tkuk vfHkdfFkr & ml okn esa jkT; ljdkj i{kdkj Fkh & ,slk okn jkT; ljdkj ds fo#) fMØh fd;k x;k & fo'ofo|ky; viuk Lora= vf/kdkj ugha j[krk cfYd ogh jkT; ljdkj }kjk & fo'ofo|ky; ds i{k esa vkcaVu lnSo okn ds vafre ifj.kke ds v/;/khu gS & bl izdkj fopkjk/khu okn dk fl)kar Bhd&Bhd ykxw gksrk gS & orZeku oknhx.k ds i{k esa fMØh QyhHkwr gks tkrh gSA , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 2537 rFkk , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 569 vuqlfjrA ¼2013½ 5 ,l lh lh 397 rFkk ¼2004½ 2 ,l lh lh 601 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 19 ls 21½
¼3½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 117] 109 rFkk 110 & [kljk esa dCtk dh izfof"V;k¡ & dk egRo & gd~ dh ?kks"k.kk] LFkk;h O;kns'k vkSj dCtk okilh dk okn & oknh ds i{k esa ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds fo#) fMØh fd;k x;k & ,slh fMØh mPpre U;k;ky; rd fLFkj j[kh xbZ & bl ekeys esa & fo'ofo|ky; dk nkok dsoy ek= dCtk dh [kljk izfof"V;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gS & [kljk izfof"V;k¡ l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds dksbZ vkns'k ds fcuk & ,slh izfof"V;k¡ fo'ofo|ky; dks vf/kd lqlaxr ;k izR;; ugha nsrha & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us fo'ofo|ky; ds i{k esa dCtk dk fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr djus ,oa oknhx.k dk nkok udkjus esa xaHkhj =qfV dh gSA ¼iSjk 22 ls 24½
¼4½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-41 fu-33 & mica/k ds v/khu 'kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr & iwoZrj vafre fMØh dks iqu% [kksyuk vfucZfU/kr vf/kdkj ugha & fgr mÙkjkf/kdkjh }kjk iwoZ ds okn ds fu.kZ; ds cy ij gd~ ?kks"k.kk] O;kns'k ,oa dCtk okilh dk okn & fo'ofo|ky; dk nkok fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk okn Hkwfe fo'ofo|ky; dks vkcafVr dh xbZ Fkh & vkcaVu dk dksbZ vkns'k vfHkys[k ij ugha & vkns'k 41 fu;e 33 orZeku oknhx.k ij izfrdwy izHkko Mkyus ds fy, iwoZrj okn esa ikfjr fMØh esa gLr{ksi djus ds fy, U;k;ky; dks l'kDr ugha djrk & fo'ofo|ky; dk izfrfojksèk & fd okn Hkwfe ds pkjksa vkSj fo'ofo|ky; ds Hkou gSa & blfy, ,slh Hkwfe fo'ofo|ky; ds ikl jguk pkfg, & blls lger ugha gqvk tk ldrk & vtZu dk;Zokfg;ksa dk voyac fd, tkus dh Lora=rk iznku dh xbZA ¼iSjk 24 ls 28½
(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.11 -- principles of resjudicata -- applicability of -- earlier suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession decreed against State Government -- such decree upheld upto Supreme Court and attained finality -- suit land purchased by plaintiffs from decree holder -- suit by plaintiffs for declaration of title, permanent injunction and recovery of possession -- claim of University -- that suit land allotted to University by State Government in lieu of land given by University for construction of High Court building -- University is in possession -- earlier decree shall operate as res judicata -- such decree was binding upon trial Court -- trial Court committed illegality in dismissing suit -- appeal allowed and suit decreed by High Court. [Paras 16 to 18 & 29
(2) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S.52 -- doctrine of lis pendens -- applicability of -- during pendency of earlier suit -- suit land alleged to be allotted to Jiwaji University by State Government -- State Government was party in that suit -- such suit decreed against State Government -- University does not have independent right but same is through State Government -- allotment in favour of University is always subject to final outcome of suit -- thus principles of lis pendens squarely applies -- decree yields fruits flowing in favour of present plaintiffs. AIR 1973 SC 2537 and AIR 1973 SC 569 followed. (2013)5 SCC 397 and (2004)2 SCC 601 referred to. [Paras 19 to 21
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss.117, 109 and 110 -- entries of possession in khasra -- value of -- earlier suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and recovery of possession -- decreed in favour of plaintiff and against State Government -- such decree upheld upto Supreme Court -- in the instant case -- claim of University based merely on khasra entries of possession -- khasra entries without any order of competent authority -- such entries shall not have much relevance or bearing to credit of University -- trial Court committed grave illegality in recording finding of possession in favour of University and negated claim of plaintiffs. [Paras 22 to 24
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.41 R.33 -- scope of powers under -- not unrestricted right to reopen earlier final decree -- suit by successor in interest on strength of judgment in earlier suit for declaration, injunction and recovery of possession -- claim of University that suit land allotted to University by State Government -- no any order of allotment placed on record -- Order 41 rule 33 not empowered to Court to interfere with decree passed in earlier suit to prejudice present appellants -- contention of University -- that suit land being surrounded by buildings of University -- hence, such land should be remained with University -- cannot be countenanced -- liberty granted to take recours of acquisition proceedings.
[Paras 24 to 28
1. This appeal by the plaintiffs under section 96 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.
12-A/2001 by III Additional District Judge, Gwalior.
2. Facts relevant and necessary for decision in the appeal are that one Harcharan Singh was owner and in possession of different parcels of agricultural lands including land admeasuring 5 bighas falling in Survey Nos.792/3 and 792/4 situated in Village Mahalgaon, District Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'). As the State Government interfered with the possession and having apprehension of forcible dispossession from the suit lands, Harcharan Singh had filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction vide Civil Suit No.284/1989 (changed number 41-A/1995) – Harcharan Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
3. It is relevant to mention at this juncture that a bunch of writ petitions, viz., Miscellaneous Petitions No.703, 704, 705, 707, 708 and 709 of 1990 [M.P. No.704 of 1990 (P. C. Chandil v. State of M.P. and Harcharan Singh)] had been filed seeking a direction against the State Government for making available lands and funds for raising construction of High Court building at Gwalior. Amongst the lands required for construction of the High Court building, certain parcels of land in the ownership of Harcharan Singh since were also required and demanded in the writ petitions, therefore, plaintiff – Harcharan Singh was also added as party. A Division Bench of this Court while disposing of aforesaid bunch of writ petitions with the consent of the parties had passed the following order;
“5. With the consent of parties we make accordingly the following directions in disposing of these petitions :-
(i) Orders of temporary injunction passed in formal Civil Suits No.263-A of 1987 and 284-A of 1989 stand vacated;
(ii) Plaintiff-respondent Harcharasingh's land as specified below shall be taken possession amicably by the State Government and no notice shall be necessary in that regard to be served on the plaintiff-respondents.
(a) Survey No.796/4 .. area 3 bighas, and
(b) Survey No.732/6 .. area 9 bighas.
The trial of the suit shall continue and that shall be expedited. The plaintiff-respondent is permitted to amend the plaint and to make a prayer therein for compensation so that in the event of plaintiff's succeeding in proving his title it may be possible for him to take a decree for compensation for the land of which possession he has given to the State Government. We also make it clear that the State of Madhya Pradesh, figuring as the defendant in the suit, shall be entitled to amend suitably its written statement. It shall be open to both parties to adduce evidence on the question of title as also possession.
(iii) Uttamsingh' land, 4 bighas, of Survey No.732/5 of Civil Suit No.158-A of 1987 is no longer in his possession. By an order passed by this Court on 16-4-1990 in Miscellaneous Petition No.820 of 1987 and 634 and 800 of 1989, possession of that land has already been handed over by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh to Jiwaji University. We had passed that order in view of the fact that there was no injunction order in regard to that plot in the pending suit of Uttamsingh. However, it shall be now possible for Uttamsingh also to amend his plaint and to claim therein compensation for that land in the same manner and for the same purpose as directed above in the case of Harcharansingh. State shall also be entitled to amend suitably its written statement and both parties shall adduce evidence in the same manner as directed above. Trial of that suit shall also be expedited.
(iv) In so far as lands of Balkrishna and others of Civil Suit No.263-A of 1987 are concerned, possession of lands of Survey Nos.732/3 and 732/4 measuring respectively 3 bighas and 10 biswas and 2 bigh
