IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 11 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 6538 of 2025 MOHANBABU SHARMA Versus BANSHILAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - learned Counsel for appellant-

defendant No.1.

Shri Pavan Singh Raghuwanshi- learned Counsel for respondents No.

1 and 2- plaintiffs.

ORDER This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated

04.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Learned Second District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha (M.P.) in RCA No. 02/2023, whereby the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sironj, District Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 27-A/2021 was reversed and set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

2. In brief, the facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration, permanent injunction, and compensation in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 391 ad-measuring 1.314 hectares, situated at Village Berkhedi, Tehsil Sironj (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land"). In the revenue records, the suit land is recorded as Survey No. 391/1, and in the computerized records as Survey No. 391/3.

3. It was pleaded that the suit land had been allotted to Kallu @

Kaluram, son of Hira, resident of Village Berkhedi, who was the father of Plaintiff No. 1 and husband of Plaintiff No. 2. Kallu passed away on 07.05.2016, and upon his demise, the plaintiffs became his sole legal heirs. The plaintiffs’ names were mutated by order dated 27.02.2017, passed in Case No. 14A-6/15-16 (Vanshilal v. State). However, Defendant No. 1 subsequently submitted an application before the Naib Tehsildar, Mandal-5 for mutation on the basis of an alleged forged Will, which was allowed in Case No. 77A-6/15-16 by order dated 19.09.2016.

4. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Sironj, in Case No. 26/Appeal/17-18, which was allowed by order dated 13.01.2020, thereby setting aside the mutation order of the Naib Tehsildar. Defendant No. 1 preferred a further appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, in Case No. 845/Appeal/2019- 20, which was allowed by order dated 19.08.2020, reinstating the order of the Naib Tehsildar and thereby upholding the mutation in favor of Defendant No. 1.

5. The plaintiffs pleaded that Defendant No. 1 belongs to the Brahmin caste, whereas the deceased Kallu belonged to the Harijan community. Defendant No. 1 allegedly manipulated the revenue proceedings by producing a forged and fabricated Will and falsely represented that Kallu died without any legal heirs. It was further pleaded that the suit land is leasehold and non-transferable, and therefore, Kallu had no right to bequeath the land by way of a Will. Consequently, Defendant No. 1 acquired no valid title, and his possession is illegal. The plaintiffs claimed that Defendant No. 1 has been earning Rs. 50,000 per annum from the land, and they are entitled to recover the same.

6. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that they are the lawful owners and possessors of the suit land (Survey No. 391 min-3, area 1.314 hectares), a permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from alienating or interfering with the suit land, and damages/mesne profits.

7. Defendant No. 1, by filing a written statement, denied the plaintiffs’

claim. He contended that Kallu lived alone and was taken care of by him, and out of natural love and affection, Kallu executed a valid registered/notarized Will dated 07.05.2007 in his favor in the presence of attesting witnesses Puran Singh and Dashrath Singh.

8. Defendant No. 1 further pleaded that the plaintiffs never resided with Kallu, and their address as residents of Village Berkhedi is false and fabricated. It was stated that mutation in his favor has already been upheld by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, in the aforesaid appellate or