IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI th ON THE 9 OF MAY, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 514 of 2005 BIRKHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS PREETAM AND OTHERS Versus MURTI SHRIRAM JANKI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anvesh Jain - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Dilip Awasthi- GA for respondent No. 2/State.

ORDER The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree, dated 14.03.2005, passed by Tenth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No.4-A of 2005 whereby the learned appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree, dated 15.04.2000, passed by Ninth civil judge, Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.127-A of 1995. The courts below have dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellants.

2. The plaintiffs/appellants filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction inter-alia with pleading that the suit land admeasuring 4 beegha 4 biswa was donated by Jamindar Tej Singh to Mahant Surajdas and after abolition of Jamindari law, Surajdas became the bhumiswami of the suit land and after him his chela Dayaldas became and was recorded as bhumiswami of suit land. It is their case that in the revenue records of samvat Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH

2007, the name of plaintiffs’ father, Ramcharan, was recorded as sikmi kashtkar. It is alleged by them that on coming into force of Madhya Bharat Bhu-Agam Krishak Adhikar Adhimiyam, their father Ramcharan acquired the bhumiswami rights over the suit land.

3. The defendant filed its written statement and denied plaint allegations and pleaded that the suit land belongs to Shriram Janki Public Trust, Ramtapura, Gwalior and the plaintiffs have encroached upon the suit land in respect of which an order for their dispossession was already passed under Section 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

4. The courts below, after appreciating the evidence brought on record, have dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they or their father acquired bhumiswami rights over the suit property. The plaintiffs failed to establish that the land was given in donation by Jamindar Tej Singh to Mahant Surajdas. They also failed to establish that Mahant Surajdas and after him, his chela Dayaldas acquired bhumiswami rights over the suit land. The only revenue entries produced by plaintiffs i.e. Ex. P/1 to P/3 does not show the name of Mahant Surajdas. They also failed to prove as to how the name of their father, Ramcharan came to be recorded as sikmi kashtkar. Thus, a finding of fact has been recorded by both the courts that the plaintiffs does not have any right, title or interest over the suit land.

5. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by both the courts, the learned counsel for appellants referred to revenue entries marked as Ex. P/1 to P/3 and submitted that the name of their father Ramcharan is shown as up-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH krishak. He submitted that on coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code, their father acquired the bhumiswami rights over the suit land by operation of law by virtue of Section 185 of the Code. The learned counsel therefore, submitted that both the courts erred in dismissing the suit.

6. The learned counsel for appellants has placed heavy reliance over Section 185 of the Code to say that the plaintiffs acquired bhumiswami rights over the suit land. Section 185 of the Code provides that every person who at the time of coming into force of the Code holds any land of a proprietor as defined in Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, as a sub-tenant or as a tenant of a sub-tenant, shall be called an occupancy tenant and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed on an occupancy tenant by or under the code. However, there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiffs’ father was in occupation of suit land as on the date of coming