2025 Supreme(MP) 504

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Jai Kumar Pillai, J.
Gulab And Others – Appellants
Versus
Radheshayam And Others  - Respondents 
Second Appeal No. 1182 of 2023
Decided On : 02-09-2025

Headnote:

¼1½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 109] 110] 116 rFkk 117 & fookfnr Òwfe oknh@çR;FkÊ Øekad 1 d¢ firk dh & çfroknhx.k@vihykFkÊx.k d¢ iwokZfèkdkjh d¢ uke ij voSèk :i ls ukekarfjr & oknh us [kljk çfof"V;k¡ 'kq) fd, tkus d¢ fy, vkosnu fd;k & og [kkfjt fd;k x;k & mi[kaM vfèkdkjh }kjk vihy Òh [kkfjt dh xà & rRi'pkr~ oknh us gd dh Ĩ"k.kk] LFkk;h O;kns'k rFkk dCts d¢ fy, flfoy okn çLrqr fd;k & çfroknhx.k us vkifÙk dh fd mUgsa Òwnku iV~Vk çnku fd;k x;k Fkk] 1953 ls 1966 rd mudk dCtk gS rFkk Òwnku ;K vfèkfu;e d¢ micaèk¨a d¢ vèkhu] laifÙk varj.k vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 54 d¢ vèkhu vkSj çfrdwy dCts }kjk mUgsa gd ç¨n~Òwr g¨ x;k gS & vfÒfuèkkZfjr] og ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgs & n¨u¨a fupys U;k;ky;¨a us okn fMØh fd;k & fupys U;k;ky;¨a d¢ ,d gh fu"d"kZ & gLr{ksi visf{kr ugÈ & vihy [kkfjtA ¼iSjk 19] 23] 25] 26] 28 ,oa 32½
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & èkkjk 100 & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & fupys U;k;ky;¨a d¢ ,d gh fu"d"kZ & gLr{ksi vR;Ur lhfer gS & fupys U;k;ky;¨a us oknh d¢ i{k esa okn fMØh fd;k & gLr{ksi visf{kr ugÈA ¼iSjk 19 ,oa 32½
¼3½ Òwnku ;K vfèkfu;e] 1953 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 17] 18 rFkk 19 & èkkjk 19 ykxw g¨uk & vihykFkÊx.k@çfroknhx.k d¢ i{k esa rFkkdfFkr Òwnku iV~Vk & èkkjk 17 rFkk 18 d¢ vuqikyu d¢ vÒko esa vÑrrk gS & èkkjk 19 ykxw ugÈ g¨xhA ¼iSjk 17 ls 21½
¼4½ Òwnku ;K vfèkfu;e] 1968 ¼eŒçŒ½ ¼;Fkk la'k¨fèkr½ & èkkjk 33 & e/; çns'k Òwnku ;K vfèkfu;e] 1953 & èkkjk 17 rFkk 18 & lu~ 1968 d¢ vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 33 ykxw g¨uk & lu~ 1953 d¢ vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 17 ,oa 18 dk vuuqikyu & çÒko & lu~ 1968 d¢ vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 33 fu"çÒkoh gSA ¼iSjk 23½
¼5½ laifÙk varj.k vfèkfu;e] 1882 & èkkjk 54 rFkk 55 & vis{kk,¡ & foØ; dSls fd;k tkrk gS & n¨u¨a fupys U;k;ky;¨a us fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd vihykFkÊx.k@çfroknhx.k foØ; lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgs & vU;Fkk Òh] mDr çk[;ku èkkjk 54 dh vis{kkv¨a d¢ vuq:i ugÈ & vihykFkÊx.k@çfroknhx.k dk vkuqdfYid i{kdFku fd fookfnr Òwfe çfrdwy dCts }kjk muesa fufgr g¨ xà gS & çfrdwy dCts d¢ vgZdkjh vko';d rRo¨a }kjk lkfcr ugÈ fd;k x;k & èkkjk 54 d¢ micaèk vkdf"kZr ugÈA ¼2005½ 11 ,llhlh 115 rFkk 2007 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 15 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 25 ,oa 26½
¼6½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & èkkjk 100 & 'kfä;¨a dh O;kfIr & çFke vihy U;k;ky; d¢ rF;kRed fu"d"kZ & tc rd fu"d"kZ çR;{kr% foi;ZLr rFkk lk{; d¢ çfrdwy ugha g¨a] f}rh; vihy U;k;ky; lk{; dk iquewZY;kadu ugÈ dj ldrk ,oa Lo;a dh jk; ls çfrLFkkfir ugÈ dh dj ldrk & ;g eku Òh fy;k tk, fd lk{; d¢ iquewZY;kadu ij vU; n`f"Vd¨.k laÒo gS] rc Hkh ,slk ugÈ fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA ¼iSjk 28½

(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 109, 110, 116 and 117 -- disputed land belongs to father of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 -- illegally mutated in name of predecessor of defendants/appellants -- plaintiff filed application for correction of khasra entries -- same dismissed -- appeal also dismissed by SDO -- thereafter, plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession -- defendants objected that Bhudan patta was granted to them, they are in possession since 1953 to 1966, and title accrued to them under provisions of Bhudan Yagna Adhiniyam, under section 54 of Transfer of Property Act and by adverse possession -- held, they failed to prove the same -- suit decreed by both Courts below -- concurrent findings of Courts below -- no interference called for -- appeal dismissed. [Paras 19, 23, 25, 26, 28 & 32]

(2) Civil P.C. 1908 -- S. 100 -- scope of powers -- concurrent findings of Courts below -- interference is very limited -- suit decreed in favour of plaintiff by Courts below -- no interference called for. [Paras 19 & 32]

(3) Bhudan Yagna Act, 1953 (M.P.) -- Ss. 17, 18 and 19 -- applicability of section 19 -- alleged Bhudan patta in favour of appellants/defendants -- is nullity in absence of compliance of sections 17 and 18 -- section 19 would not apply. [Paras 17 to 21]

(4) Bhudan Yagna Adhiniyam, 1968 (M.P.) (as amended) -- S. 33 -- M. P. Bhudan Yagna Act, 1953 -- Ss. 17 and 18 -- applicability of section 33 of Adhiniyam of 1968 -- non-compliance of sections 17 and 18 of Act of 1953 -- effect -- section 33 of Act of 1968 is ineffective. [Para 23]

(5) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- Ss. 54 and 55 -- requirements -- sale how made -- both Courts below found that appellants/defendants failed to prove sale -- otherwise also, said assertion is not in line with requirements of section 54 -- alternate case of appellants/defendants that land in dispute has vested in them by virtue of adverse possession -- not proved by qualifying necessary ingredients of principles of adverse possession -- provisions of section 54 not attracted. (2005) 11 SCC 115 and 2007 (3) MPLJ 315 referred to. [Paras 25 & 26]

(6) Civil P.C. 1908 -- S. 100 -- scope of powers -- findings of fact of first appellate Court -- second appellate Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and cannot substantiate its own opinion unless findings are manifestly perverse and contrary to evidence -- even assuming that another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, that should not have been done. [Para 28]

JUDGMENT :

Jai Kumar Pillai, J.

The appellants/defendants/Gulab and others have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10/02/2023 passed in RCA No.73-A/2018 by the Vth District Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District-Indore whereby the learned first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, challenging the judgment and decree dated 19/11/2018 passed by Vth Civil Judge, Class-II, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District-Indore in Civil Suit No.26- A/2015 whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff/Radheyshyam.

Facts of the case, in short are as under :-

2. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession, declaration, injunction and mesne profit with respect to suit property i.e. agricultural land bearing survey No.119/1, 119/2, 119/3 having total area of 1.16 Acre i.e. 0.470 hectare, situated at Village-Awalipura, Tehsil-Mhow, District - Indore (M.P.)

3. It is admitted fact in the present case that the suit land has been recorded in the name of appellant No. 1 to 3 after the demise of their father Shri Thawar Singh. It is also admitted fact that plaintiff moved an application before Nayab Tehsildar on 10-11- 2006 for correction of entries in revenue record, which was dismissed and thereafter an application on 08-01-2013 was also preferred regarding interference by defendants in the possession of plaintiff at suit land, which was also dismissed, against which an appeal was preferred by plaintiff before learned Sub Divisional Officer, Mhow which was registered as Case No.52/Appeal/2013- 14 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 26-06-2014. Thereafter suit land has been parted amongst appellant No.1 to 3 by the Revenue Officer and their name is mutated on their respective share and they are in the actual possession of the suit land.

4. The plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that, suit land is the ancestral land of plaintiff. The name of his father is Babulal and the name of his grandfather is Nanuram Sharma. Suit land was recorded in the name of his grandfather in the revenue record of the year 1958-59 to 1963-64. Thereafter, without any right, name of Thawar S/o Somu Bheel is mutated in the revenue record. Father and grandfather of plaintiff has died and he was not aware about the revenue records and therefore he never obtained the copies of revenue record from the department. Plaintiffs forefathers were having possession over the suit property. In the year 2006, when a high-way was taking shape near the suit land, then he obtained the revenue record and found that the name of Thawar is recorded against the suit land in the revenue record. It is alleged by the plaintiff that during the proceedings before learned revenue courts, defendants took the possession over suit land by force, illegally in the year 2013. Therefore, it was essential to file the present suit before learned trial Court. Plaintiff also alleged that defendants are eager to sale the suit land to other purchaser.

5. Appellants/Defendants filed their written statement and contested the suit. Defendants denied the pleadings of plaintiff in toto and further pleaded that plaintiff has himself pleaded before revenue authorities that suit land was donated by his grandfather Nanuram on 15/07/1953 and he does not have any document to show that such donation was ever revoked. The defendant further pleaded that suit land was given to Thawar under Bhu Daan Yagna Act, 1968 as he was landless person and thereafter his name was mutated in revenue records. It is further pleaded by the defendant that merely name of Nanuram recorded in revenue records till 1966 i.e. even after donation of such land in the year 1953, does not create any right in favour of plaintiff or Nanuram. Suit land is in the exclusive possession and ownership of Thawar since 1953. Suit has been filed on frivolous grounds by the plaintiff. Suit land is purchased by Thawar and at the relevant point of time they were illiterate and were not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document