JUDGMENT

With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

1. This first appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant / plaintiff against the order dated 10.11.2020 passed by learned District Judge, Bhopal in RCSA No.2346/2020, by which the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction, was dismissed under Order 7 rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit does not disclose any cause of action and plaint being pre-mature.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are that the present appellant / plaintiff entered into a contract through registered agreement to sale dated 7.6.2010 with the respondent for the agricultural land having survey numbers 92, 135, 136, 141, 172, 196, 197, 198, 222/53, total area 21.67 acres situated at Gram Pipliyabajkha, Tahsil Huzur, Distrit Bhopal (MP). Late Imratlal S/o. Late Gangaram was the original owner of the aforesaid property having clear title and possession of the said land. As he was not having any issue, in the year 1985 he adopted the present respondent Ashok Kumar as his legal heir by adoption deed dated 28.8.1985. Imratlal died issueless in the year 1986. Meanwhile, one Jamni Bai claimed to be wife of Imratlal filed an application for fauti mutation before the Tahsildar and present respondent being adopted son of Imratlal objected the same and prayed for mutation of the abovementioned land in his name, however, the Tahsildar passed an order dated 6.3.1987 directing for mutation in favour of the present respondent in the revenue records. Thereafter, order of mutation was challenged by nephew of Jamni Bai before the Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) and by order dated 30.6.1992, the S.D.O. quashed the order dated 6.3.1987 and remitted the matter for consideration of the same afresh which was finally decided on 3.11.1992 and name of Imratlal was ordered to be recorded in the revenue records. Being aggrieved by the order dated 3.11.1992; the present respondent moved an application before the SDO for cancellation of the mutation order which was dismissed on 4.1.2014. The order of SDO was again challenged by the respondent by filing second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal which was registered as case No.350/appeal/14-15 and the learned Additional Commissioner vide order dated 31.12.2015 allowed the appeal and set-aside the order dated 3.11.1992 and name of the respondent was directed to be mutated in the revenue records.

3. Against the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner, a revision No. 73/PBR/2016 was filed before the Revenue Commissioner, Gwalior which was dismissed vide order dated 11.5.2016 and the order dated 31.12.2015 was affirmed. Against the order dated 11.5.2016, a writ petition was filed which was registered as WP No.10166/2016 and the same was dismissed on 21.7.2016 upholding the order dated 11.5.2016.

4. One W.P. No.12491/2016 was also filed by Najma Bi and Shahrukh Khan, who purchased a portion of land measuring 1.967 hectares each from the property in dispute in the year 2002 through a sale deed. Najma Bi purchased the land which is a part of Khasra no. 389 (old 196) area measuring 1.40 hectares and a land part of Khasra no. 390 (old 197) area measuring 0.56 hectares, total 1.967 hectares vide registered sale deed dated 22.04.2002 from Krishna Kant and Ajab Singh. Shahrukh Khan also purchased a part of land of Khasra no. 388 (old 196) area measuring 1.83 hectares and Khasra No. 390 (old 197) area measuring 0.137 hectares, total 1.967 hectares vide registered sale deed dated 22.04.2002 from Krishna Kant and Ajab Singh.

5. However, W.P. No.12491/2016 was disposed of vide order dated 7.1.2019 remitting the order back to the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal for deciding the matter afresh only in respect of the land belonging to the Najma Bi and Shahrukh Khan. It was made clear that so far as the land not concerned to Najma Bi an