The court upheld the findings of oral partition based on evidence, affirming the lower courts' decisions and jurisdiction of the Tahsildar under M.P. Land Revenue Code.

ORDER

This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, has been filed against judgment and decree dated 09.03.2022 passed by II Additional Judge to the Court of I District Judge, Basoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in RCA No.100009/2016 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2015 passed by II Civil Judge Class- I, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in RCSA No.97/2015.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs who have lost their case from both the courts below.

3. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pleading inter alia that Neelam Singh Raghuvanshi was the father of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 and husband of plaintiff no.6. He had 1/2 share in lands situated in village Bhiyakhedi and in village Nateran. Father of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 filed an application for partition of lands situated in village Bhiyakhedi and Nateran which was registered as Case No./A27/119/10. It was alleged that defendants without there being any title have got the name of Neelam Singh Raghuvanshi deleted from the aforesaid land and got their names mutated by obtaining an order dated 11.04.2011. After the aforesaid order, Neelam Singh went in depression and became the victim of serious ailment, as a result he died about a year back. It was the claim of the appellants that being legal representatives of Neelam Singh they are entitled to get their title declared. It was further alleged that order dated 11.04.2011 passed by Tahsildar in case No.123/A27/2009-10 is null and void to the extent of rights of plaintiffs. It is further submitted that now the defendants are also denying the title of the plaintiffs in respect of land situated in village Nateran and accordingly the suit was filed for declaration of title as well as for declaration that order dated 11.04.2011 passed by Tahsildar, Nateran in Case No. 123/A27/2009-10 is null and void to the extent of share of plaintiffs and it was also prayed that plaintiffs are entitled to get their names mutated in the revenue records.

4. Defendants No.1 to 3 filed their written statement and it was claimed that about 25 years back an oral partition had taken place between Neelam Singh and Gajraj Singh and after the oral partition, Neelam Singh got the land situated in village Bhairobag. Therefore, after the oral partition Neelam Singh had lost all his title in respect of land situated in village Nateran and Bhiyakhedi. Neelam Singh had filed an application for partition of land situated in village Bhiyakhedi and Nateran which was dismissed by order dated 11.04.2011 after recording evidence of parties. It was also pleaded that Natthu Singh was father of Neelam Singh and Gajraj Singh. Natthu Singh were three brothers, namely, Natthu Singh, Deewan Singh and Munshilal. They had lands in village Bhiyakhedi, Nateran and Bhairobag. Natthu Singh, in a partition amongst his brothers, got the land situated in Bhairobag, Nateran and Bhiyakhedi. Later on, an oral partition took place between Neelam Singh and Gajraj Singh and the land situated in village Nateran and Bhiyakhedi went to the share of Gajraj Singh whereas land situated in Bhairobag went to the share of Neelam Singh. It is submitted that after oral partition Neelam Singh was in possession of land situated in Bhairobag whereas after the death of Gajraj Singh defendants are in possession of the land situated in village Nateran and Bhiyakhedi. It was further pleaded that Neelam Singh during his lifetime had also alienated land situated in village Bhairobag to Dharu Singh, Mahendra Singh, Kalyan Singh. It was submitted that out of the entire land which was received by Neelam Singh, he has already alienated 11.778 hectares of land and now 12 bigha of land situa