IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
GAJENDRA SINGH, J.
Smt. Narbada Bai, W/o. Rameshwar Prasad Dubey (Dead) Thr. Lrs Murlidhar Dubey, S/o. Shri Rameshwar Prasad Dubey and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Mahadev Ji Mandir Loknyaas Bandhaiyapura Miloniganj, Jabalpur, Thr.- Shri Sudama Prajapati, S/o. Late Mahesh Prasad and Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 1309 of 2021
Decided On : 16-02-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disputed property ownership and trust possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendants' claims and objections to the suit. (Para 5) |
| 3. trial court's evidentiary findings and recognition. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. contentions regarding the scrutiny of evidence. (Para 9 , 12 , 14 , 18) |
| 5. dismissing the appeal due to lack of substantial questions. (Para 11 , 23 , 25) |
| 6. interpretation of revenue records and impact on ownership claims. (Para 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
GAJENDRA SINGH, J.
This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC is preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2021 in RCA No.58-A/2015 by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur arising out of judgment and decree dated 29.07.2013 in RCSA No.138A/2008 by 13th Civil Judge, Class-I, Jabalpur, District-Jabalpur.
2. According to averments in plaint, facts in brief are that disputed property bearing khasra No.153 rakba 3.80 acres, khasra No.104 rakba 0.97, khasra No.119 rakba 0.67 acres and khasra No.120 rakba 0.58 acres total two acres. Patwari Halka No.24/21 Bandobast No.601 is situated in Mauja Gohalpur, Jabalpur. Plaintiff is a registered Public Trust bearing registration No.278. Shri Sudama Prasad Prajapati/respondent No.1 is the care taker. Shri Chetram Patel, Bhimma alias Bhima Patel/respondent No.2, Shankarlal Prajapati alias Shankar Prajapati/respondent No.3 and Pannalal Patel/respondent No.4 were its trustee and the suit was filed through them. It was averred that the trust was in actual possession of the disputed property since 1959. Defendant Nos.1 to 3/appellants had filed an application for correction of revenue record under Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before defendant No.5 in regard to khasra No.153 rakba 3.80 acres Mauja Gohalpur, Jabalpur. The above land is recorded in the name of Shri Mahadev Ji Mandir Trust, the said name should be deleted and the name of the applicants be recorded as Bhumi-Swami and in possession. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 subsequently filed an amendment application praying for correction of revenue records of disputed property bearing khasra No.104 rakba No.0.97, khasra No.119 rakba No.0.67, khasra No.120 rakba No.0.58 also.
3. It was also averred that Shri Mahadevji Mandir Trust had filed a suit for possession before learned Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur bearing Regular Civil Suit No.255/29 ( Shri Mahadevji Mandir Trust vs. Baldev Prasad and others ). The trial Court passed the judgment and decree in favour of Mahadevji Mandir Trust on 02.09.1929. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants therein filed a First Appeal before the District Court, Jabalpur. Vide judgment dated 09.02.1931, the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed. Defendants thereafter filed a Second Appeal before the Judicial Commissioner Central Province. Vide judgment dated 06.09.1934 the appeal was dismissed. In view of these judgments, the plaintiff trust was in possession of the disputed property and their names were recorded in official records. It was the further case of the plaintiff that the application filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 under Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 regarding disputed property was not maintainable because under the said section the correction in khasra and other revenue records can be done by senior officer’s and that correction can be done by Tehsildar on the fact coming to his knowledge under Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The parties have no right to file an application. If any person is aggrieved by the entries in revenue record maintained under Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue he can file an application for correction of record within one year of such entries under Section 116 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 to Tehsildar. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 did not file any such application.
4. It was further averred that in the name of plaintiff, Public Trust is recorded as owner and Bhumi Swami of the disputed land. Be
Ownership claims based on revenue records require substantiated evidence; mere entries do not confer title. Courts upheld prior judgments confirming plaintiffs' rights to the property.
Revenue records do not establish ownership; the burden of proving title lies with the plaintiff, and failure to provide valid documentation leads to resolution against the claim.
Revenue records do not confer title; ownership must be established through valid documentation and historical possession.
Civil suits can challenge revenue authority orders if they violate principles of natural justice. Failure to notify affected parties renders such orders void.
Possession follows title; entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. A suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title when possession is established.
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.