IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Vishwanath Singh v. Munni Bai Kewat & another
First Appeal No. 846 of 2012 (Jabalpur); against the judgment and decree dated 1.8.2012 passed by the I Additional District Judge, District Shahdol in Civil Suit No. 08A/2011;
Decided on 12.9.2019
(1) Practice -- evidence -- discrepancy -- effect -- suit for declaration of title -- plaintiff deposed she is daughter of Sarju Kewat -- corroborated by witness -- even defendant witness admitted this -- she clarified that she was nurtured by Goje Kevat so name of her father in revenue record is mentioned as Goje Kevat -- this discrepancy has no effect -- on that basis, statement of plaintiff cannot be disbelieved. [Para 13]
(2) Registration Act, 1908 -- S.17 -- deed of conveyance -- is compulsorily registrable -- transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by deed of conveyance (sale deed) -- in absence of deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in immovable property can be transferred. AIR 2009 SC 3077 followed. [Para 16]
(3) Adverse Possession -- mere possession, howsoever long it may be, does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to true owner -- requirement of acquisition of title by adverse possession is that such possession is in denial of true owners' title. (2004)10 SCC 65 and (2006)7 SCC 570 followed. [Para 19]
(4) Adverse Possession -- proving title over immovable property on basis of adverse possession -- has to be proved that defendant is in hostile possession of suit land continuously for 12 years in knowledge of true owner of property. [Para 22]
(5) Adverse Possession -- defendant denied that plaintiff is owner of suit land -- question of his being in hostile possession and question of denying title of true owner (plaintiff), do not arise. [Para 22]
(6) Title -- defendant averred that he purchased suit land and got possession -- since then he is in possession of suit land -- did not plead that after getting possession of suit land by consent of owner, when his possession became adverse against true owner of suit land -- merely on basis of long possession, it cannot be said that defendant became owner of suit land on basis of adverse possession. (2004)10 SCC 65 (2006)7 SCC 570 followed. [Para 22]
(7) Limitation Act, 1963 -- Art. 65 -- Possession -- claim for possession of immovable property on basis of title -- Art. 65 of Limitation Act will apply -- suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title can be instituted within a period of twelve years calculated from date when possession of defendant becomes adverse to plaintiff -- defendant failed to prove that his possession over suit land is adverse against true owner of suit land and he is in hostile possession of suit land continuously for 12 years in knowledge of true owner of property -- trial Court did not commit any mistake in holding that suit of plaintiff is within time. (2004)10 SCC 65 followed. [Para 24]
¼1½ ÁFkk & lk{; & QdZ & ÁHkko & gd dh ?kks"k.kk ds fy, okn & oknh us vfHklk{; fn;k fd og ljtw dsoV dh iq=h gS & lk{kh }kjk laiq"V & Áfroknh lk{kh rd us ;g Lohdkj fd;k & oknh us Li"V fd;k fd mls xksts dsoV us ikyk Fkk blfy, jktLo vfHkys[k esa mlds firk dk uke xksts dsoV mfYyf[kr gS & bl QdZ ls dksbZ ÁHkko ugha iM+rk & ml vk/kkj ij oknh ds dFku ij vfo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 13½
¼2½ jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 & /kkjk 17 & vfHkgLrkarj.k foys[k & vfuok;Zr% jftLVªh;ksX; gS & foØ; ds ek/;e ls LFkkoj laifÙk dk varj.k vfHkgLrkarj.k foys[k ¼foØ; foys[k½ }kjk gh gks ldrk gS & vfHkgLrkarj.k foys[k ¼lE;d~:is.k LVkafir rFkk fof/k }kjk ;Fkkisf{kr jftLVªhÑr½ ds vHkko esa LFkkoj laifÙk esa fdlh vf/kdkj] gd vFkok fgr dk varj.k ugha gks ldrkA , vkb vkj 2009 ,l lh 3077 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16½
¼3½ Áfrdwy dCtk & ek= dCts dk] og pkgs ftruk yack gks] ;g vFkZ gksuk vko';d ugha fd og okLrfod Lokeh ds Áfrdwy gS & Áfrdwy dCts }kjk ds vtZu ds fy, vis{kk ;g gS fd ,slk dCtk okLrfod Lokeh ds gd ls bUdkj djrs gq, gksA ¼2004½ 10 ,l lh lh 65 rFkk ¼2006½ 7 ,l lh lh 570 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19½
¼4½ Áfrdwy dCtk & Áfrdwy dCts ds vk/kkj ij LFkkoj laifÙk ij gd lkfcr djuk & lkfcr fd;k tkuk gksrk gS fd laifÙk ds okLrfod Lokeh dh tkudkjh esa fujarj 12 o"kZ ls Áfroknh dk okn Hkwfe ij Áfrdwy dCtk gSA ¼iSjk 12½
¼5½ Áfrdwy dCtk & Áfroknh us ÁR;k[;ku fd;k fd oknh okn Hkwfe dh Lokeh gS & Áfroknh dk Áfrdwy dCtk gksus dk Á'u rFkk okLrfod Lokeh ¼oknh½ ds gd dk ÁR;k[;ku djus dk Á'u] mnHkwr gh ugha gksrsA ¼iSjk 22½
¼6½ gd & Áfroknh us ÁdFku fd;k fd mlus okn Hkwfe Ø; dh rFkk dCtk ÁkIr fd;k & rc ls okn Hkwfe ij mldk dCtk gS & ;g vfHkokd~ ugha fd;k fd Lokeh dh lgefr ls okn Hkwfe dk dCtk ÁkIr djus ds i'pkr~ mldk dCtk dc okn Hkwfe dh okLrfod Lokeh ds Áfrdwy gks x;k & ek= yacs dCts ds vkèkkj ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd Áfroknh Áfrdwy dCts ds vk/kkj ij okn Hkwfe dk Lokeh cu x;kA ¼2004½ 10 ,l lh lh 65 rFkk ¼2006½ 7 ,l lh lh 570 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 22½
¼7½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 & vuqPNsn 65 & dCtk & gd ds vk/kkj ij LFkkoj laifÙk ds dCts ds fy, okn & ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dk vuqPNsn 65 ykxw gksxk & gd ds vk/kkj ij LFkkoj laifÙk ds dCts vFkok mlesa fdlh fgr ds fy, okn ml fnukad ls laxf.kr ckjg o"kZ dh vof/k ds Hkhrj lafLFkr fd;k tk ldrk gS tc Áfroknh dk dCtk oknh ds Áfrdwy gks x;k & Áfroknh lkfcr djus esa vlQy fd okn Hkwfe ij mldk dCtk okn Hkwfe dh okLrfod Lokeh ds Áfrdwy gS rFkk laifÙk dh okLrfod Lokeh dh tkudkjh esa fujarj 12 o"kZ ls okn Hkwfe ij mldk dCtk gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa dksbZ Hkwy ugha dh fd oknh dk okn le; ls ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ¼2004½ 10 ,l lh lh 65 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 24½
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 1.8.2012 passed by I Additional District Judge, District Shahdol in Civil Suit No.08-A/2011, whereby learned ADJ decreed the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff Munni Bai Kewat and declared her owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 96/1, area 0.202 hectare situated at village Jhagarha, Tehsil Sohagpur (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”) and directed the appellant/defendant to give possession of the suit land within two months to the respondent No.1/plaintiff and not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over suit land after giving its possession to the respondent No.1/plaintiff.
2. It is notable here that plaintiff Smt. Munnibai had filed Civil Suit No. 08-A/2011 against appellant Vishwanath Singh regarding suit land and also filed Civil Suit No.10-A/2011 regarding another land against Harendra Singh, Jitendra Singh and Bhupendra Singh on the same ground. Learned trial Court consolidated both the suits and tried them jointly and disposed of both the suits by a common judgement, but appellant Vishwanath Singh, Harendra Singh, Jitendra Singh and Bhupendra Singh filed two separate appeals i.e. F.A. No. 846/2012 and F.A. No. 844.2012 respectively against the judgement of the trial Court. So both the appeals are being decided by this Court by the separate judgements. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent No.1 is the plaintiff of the civil suit out of which this appeal arises. The appellant and respondent No.1 shall be referred to as described in the suit.
3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Munni Bai Kewat filed a Civil Suit No.08-A/2011 for declaration, possession and permanent injunction regarding suit land averring that earlier suit land was owned by her Grand-Father Mangal Kewat. He had two sons Goje Kewat and Sarju Kewat. The name of Goje Kewat’s wife was Basanti @ Rani Bai and the name of Sarju Kewat’s wife was Phoolbai Kewat. Respondent No. 1 is the daughter of Sarju Kewat and Phoolbai Kewat. She further averred that her father Sraju Kewat died in the year 1972-73 when she was aged about 2-3 years. Her mother Phoolbai Kewat died in the year 1971. Goje Kewat and Basanti Bai had no offspring, due to which Goje Kewat and Basanti Bai nurtured her and her marriage was also performed by them. Earlier in the revenue record, the suit land was recorded in the name of Mangal Kewat and after his death said land was mutated in the name of Goje Kewat and his mother Jhini Kewat (widow of late Mangal). Goje Kewat died in the year 1998 and Jhini Kewat died in the year 1986. After the death of Goje Kewat and his wife Basanti @ Rani Bai and plaintiff’s father Sarju Kewat, she is the sole owner of the suit land. Defendant Vishwanath Singh wrongly got his name mutated in the revenue record on the suit land, while the suit land was in possession of the plaintiff and she was doing the agricultural work over the suit land. In the year 2007 defendant forcibly occupied the suit land and wrongly obstructed the plaintiff from using the suit land, therefore, she lodged the complaint against him before the competent authority and also filed an application under section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Tehsildar, Budhar. When plaintiff obtained copies of the revenue record of suit land, she came to know that in the revenue record the name of defendant is recorded as owner on the suit land, therefore, she filed an appeal before the SDO, Sohagpur (case No.11/Appeal/10-11) and vide order dated 27.11.2010 SDO, Sohagpur allowed the appeal and set aside the order of mutation passed by Tehsildar, Budhar and also directed to record the name of plaintiff as owner of the suit land. In the year 2007 defendant forcibly occupied the suit land. So plaintiff be declared owner of the suit land and defendant be directed to give possession of the suit land to plaintiff and an injectio
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.