Ownership cannot be established by revenue entries that fail to link survey numbers accurately or by entries as 'Khethiar' that do not satisfy statutory requirements. Furthermore, a gift deed is invalid if the donor lacks legal title to the property.

________________________________________

This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

JUDGEMENT

Heard on the question of admission.

2. This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (for brevity, CPC) has been filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “plaintiff”) against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as “defendants”) being aggrieved the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.01.2021 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Sidhi in RCA No. 63A/2018 confirming the Judgment and decree dated 22.11.2017 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class – II, Churhat District-Sindhi in Civil Suit No. 75A/2016.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the learned Courts below has erred in law as well as in facts in dismissing the appeal by the appellant/plaintiff by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court and by ignoring the provisions of Section 2(Gha), 3 and 7 of the Vindhya Pradesh Malgujari Tatha Keshtkari Adhiniyam, 1953 and also ignoring the provisions of Sections 57 , 157, 158 and 248 of MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 as the appellant/plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since prior to the year of 1953, It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that by disbelieving the Ex. P/2 and P/3 which is the Varshik Khatouni Jamabandi in which the name of the maternal grandfather namely Shobhnath is recorded as Khethiar, the Court below committed mistake. The learned Courts below have also erred by disbelieving the Ex. P-27 which is a registered gift deed, it is duly executed and registered by the Registrar and has been supported by the attesting witness before the learned trial Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the second appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Keeping in view the provision, it is to be examined whether the appellant/plaintiff become the owner of disputed land situated in village Ganjar as well as in village Badokhar Ex. P/1 to P/18 are the revenue papers regarding disputed land situated at village Ganjar, while P/19 to P/26 are related to be disputed land situated at Badokhar. As pleaded by the plaintiff, the survey number of suit land was converted into new number as stated in the chart below:-

Village Ganjar

Village Badokhar

7. As per the pleading as stated above, it was incumbent on the appellant/plaintiff to the prove that old survey number of suit land was converted into the number stated in the column number 2 of list above and thereafter they converted into the survey number depicted in column number 3 of the list. For that purpose Ex. P/1 is renumbering list of gram Ganjar and Ex. P/19 is renumbering list of gram Badhokhar has been submitted by the appellant/plaintiff but both the list contained only old number and new number which are as under:-

Gram Ganjar

Gram Badokhar

8. The Ex. P/1 and P/19 as aforesaid depicts the old number and new number but initial number has not been depicted in aforesaid list hence it cannot be assured that land depicted in column No. 1 is the land which is shown in column No. 3 of the list mentioned in aforesaid para 6. Moreover, the area of basic number in para 1 also do not resemble to that area mentioned in column 3 in the list.

9. It is also mentioned here that Ex. P/2 and P/3 are the basic documents on the basis of which it is pleaded by plaintiff that his maternal grand-father namely Shobhnath as Khethiar has become the owner of the suit land in 1958-59 when M.P. Land Revenue Code come into force. Ex. P/1 and P/2 reveals that the Shobhnath has