Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 38719
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI, J
Kishan Yadav & Ors – Appellant
Versus
Hariprasad & Ors – Respondent
SA 912/2004
Mohd.Qasim,S.Aditya,Ml.Kushwaha,Rahul Singh, Vinod Kushwaha
The plaintiffs acquired Bhumiswami rights over the suit land due to original owners' failure to apply for resumption, rendering subsequent sale deeds void.
Headnote:(A) M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Sections 185, 190, 189, and 168 - Dispute over ownership and possession of agricultural land - First Appellate Court reversed trial court's decision, granting plaintiffs full title and possession based on Bhumiswami rights acquired due to non-application for resumption by original owners - Sale deeds executed during litigation deemed void. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 21)
(B) Adverse Possession - Claim of adverse possession by plaintiffs not sustainable as possession was permissive and based on prior agreement - Legal principles regarding Bhumiswami rights and occupancy tenants discussed. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title over agricultural land previously owned by Moolchand and others, claiming Bhumiswami rights after uninterrupted possession since 1961, while the defendants argued the sale deeds executed by Moolchand were valid. (Paras 3.1, 4.8)
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had acquired Bhumiswami rights as original owners failed to apply for resumption of land, thus rendering the sale deeds void. (Paras 9, 10, 21)
Issues: The main issues addressed were the validity of sale deeds executed by original owners during litigation, the plaintiffs' claim of Bhumiswami rights, and the permissive nature of possession. (Paras 2, 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs had established their Bhumiswami rights under Section 190 due to the original owners' failure to act, and the sale deeds executed during litigation were void due to the doctrine of lis pendens. (Paras 21, 22)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Since b oth the appeals have been filed by different sets of parties challenging the common impugned judgment and decree dated 28.06.2004 passed by the First Appellate Court deciding two regular civil appeals bearing Nos. 8-A/2004 and 9-A/2004 and therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Appellants have filed these appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court vide order dated 02.03.2020 admitted the appeals on the following substantial questions of law:-
“A. Whether the first appellate court was legally justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff/respondents were only entitled to 1/4th share in the suit lands which belonged to Moolchand?
B. Whether the Courts below were legally justified in holding that the sale-deeds of the suit lands executed in favour of the defendant/appellants by the L.Rs. of the remaining three brothers of Moolchand were void even to the extent of their 3/4th share in the suit property?
C. Whether the first appellate court was legally justified in holding that the plaintiff/respondents had got Bhumiswami rights over the suit lands under Section 190 of the MPLR Code, specially when there is no evidence to show that Motilal, Kanhaiyalal and Kunjilal, the brothers of Moolchand had not given their part of the suit lands and Shikmi to Nandlal?
D. Whether the defendant/appellants were entitled to retain 3/4th part of the suit lands by virtue of the sale-deeds in their favour and the courts below legally erred in not decreeing their counter claim?
3. To answer the substantial questions of law, it is appropriate to consider the facts of the case, which are being extracted from the pleadings of the parties and those are as under:-
3.1 The plaintiffs had preferred a suit for declaration of title and also for declaration of sale deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos. 15 to 21 as null and void. They had also sought decree of permanent injunction.
3.2 The suit property is Kh. Nos. 1092/2, 933, 934 and 109/1 together measuring 17.21 acres, Kh. No. 11/2/1 measuring 4.71 acres and Kh. No. 11/13 measuring 4.63 acres. The said property is situated in the Village Qasba, District Sehore (For brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’).
3.3 The trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.01.2004 passed in RCS No. 60-A/1998 decreed the suit partially declaring that the plaintiffs are having title and possession over 1/4 part of the suit property and sale deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos. 15 to 21 are null and void and also granted decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering into peaceful possession of the share for which plaintiffs are declared as title holders.
3.4 The said judgment and decree dated 12.01.2004 was further assailed by the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Appeal before the Appellate Court under Section 96 of CPC. The said appeal was registered as RCA No. 08-A/2004. At the same time, the defendant Nos. 15 to 21 had also preferred an appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the said appeal was registered as RCA No. 09-A/2004. Both the appeals were heard analogously and decided by the First Appellate Court by a common judgment and decree dated 28.06.2004. The First Appellate Court allowed the RCA No. 08-A/2004 decreeing the suit in its entirety and the appeal preferred by the defendant Nos. 15 to 21/appellants i.e. RCA No. 09- A/2004 was dismissed.
4. As per the averments made in the plaint, the case of the plaintiffs before the trial court was as follows:
4.1 The suit property belonged to Moolchand, Motilal, Kanhaiyalal and Kunjilal, who gave the land to Nandlal (predecessor of plaintiffs) as Sikmi Kastkar w.e.f. 15.06.1956 and as such they delivered the possession of the suit property to Nandlal.
4.2 As on 01.01.1959, Nandlal was the Sikmi Kastkar of the suit property whereas on 02.10.1959, M.P. Land Revenue Code , 1959 (for brevity ‘Code, 1959’) was enforced, b
