The admissibility of evidence, proper legal procedures in mutation proceedings, burden of proof in ownership disputes, and the binding nature of concurrent findings of fact in appellate courts.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Rusia, J.

1. This is a second appeal filed by defendant No. 1 against the judgment and decree dated 21.4.2017 passed by first Civil Judge, Class-I, Neemuch whereby the suit filed by respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs has been partly decreed and therefore affirmed by third Additional District Judge, Neemuch vide judgment dated 11.2.2020 by dismissing Civil Appeal No. 46-A/2018 filed by defendant No. 1.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under:

(i) Respondents No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") are real brothers and permanent residents of Village Kalikotdi, Tehsil Jeeran, District Neemuch. They purchased agricultural land bearing Survey 22 area 0.64 Hect. (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land") by way of registered sale-deed dated 20.7.1989 from Smt. Ghisi Bai and Smt. Sajnibai who were sisters, which they had succeeded from their mother late Hagami Bai. After the death of Hagami Bai, her daughters viz. Ghisi Bai and Sajnibai became the owner of the suit land and they sold the same to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed Revenue Case No. 34/A-6/04-05 before the Tehsildar seeking mutation of their name. Vide order dated 9.9.2006 vide Ex. D/6, their names had been mutated in the revenue record. The Land Acquisition Officer, Neemuch has registered the case for acquisition of the suit land i.e. Case No. 03/A-82/2012-13 and issued notice dated 28.5.2013 to the plaintiffs.

(ii) The plaintiffs came to know that defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendant No. 2 has got mutated the suit land his name vide order dated 6.5.2013 (Ex. P/8) passed in Case No. 5/B-121/2012-13 and got mutated his name in the revenue record and now he is trying to get the amount of compensation from defendant No. 3. The aforesaid order dated 6.5.2013 gave a cause of action to the plaintiffs to file a suit for the relief of declaration of their ownership and declaration that the order dated 6.5.2013 is void and not binding on them. The plaintiffs also sought the relief of permanent injunction that defendants No. 1 and 2 be restrained from alienating the suit land and defendant No. 3 be also restrained from giving the amount of compensation to defendant No. 1.

(iii) Defendant No. 1 filed the written statement denying that Gheesibai and Sajnibai were ever owners of the suit land, hence they had no right to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the original owner of the suit land was Hagami Bai and after her death, her daughter - Gheesibai i.e. mother of defendant No. 1 became the owner of the suit land, after her death, by way of succession he had become the absolute owner of the suit land. Therefore, he filed an application for mutation of his name in the revenue record vide Case No. 5/B-121/2012-13 by impleading the plaintiffs as non-applicants, but they did not choose to appear in the said proceedings. Defendant No. 1 also filed a counterclaim seeking the relief of a permanent injunction against the plaintiffs that they be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land.

(iv) On the basis of pleadings, the learned Civil Judge framed six issues for adjudication, which are as under:

^^1- D;k oknh fookfnr Hkwfe ds Lokeh gSa\

2- D;k fookfnr Hkwfe ij izfroknh Øekad 01 ds ukekarj.k dk vkns'k fnukad 06-05-2013 voS/k gksdj 'kqU;or~ gS\

3- D;k izfroknh Øekad 01 voS/k :i ls fookfnr Hkwfe ds foØ; gsrq iz;kljr~ gSa\

4- D;k izfroknh Øekad 01 fookfnr Hkwfe ds fof/kd vkf/kiR;/kkjh gSa\

5- D;k oknh fookfnr Hkwfe ds izfroknh Øekad 01 ds vkf/kiR; esa voS/k :i ls gLr{ksi dj jgs gSa\

6- lgk;rk ,oa O;;\**

In support of the case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No. 1 as P.W. 1 and got exhibited 15 documents as Ex. P/1 to P/15. Defendant No. 1 examined himself as D.W. 1 and got exhibited 11 documents as Ex. D/1 to Ex. D/11.

(v) The plaintiff produced a certified copy of sale-deed dated 20.7.1989 as Ex. P/1, Defendant No. 1 raised an objection that such a Certified Copy of the sale-d