IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 18 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 409 of 2008 HIMMAT SINGH AND OTHERS Versus LACHHUA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Raju Sharma - Advocate for appellants.

Shri J.P. Mishra - Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.

Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 4 / State.

JUDGMENT This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28/06/2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Karera District Shivpuri, in Civil Appeal No. 5A/2006 by which the judgment and decree dated 24/12/2005 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-

II, Karera, District Shivpuri, in Civil Suit No. 45A/2003 has been set aside.

2. Appellant is the plaintiff who has lost his case from the First Appellate Court.

3. The undisputed fact is that the disputed property bearing survey No.

258/1, area 0.70 hectare, and survey No. 258/2, area 0.70 hectare, are situated in village Dabar Bhat.

4. It is the case of plaintiff that Bhartu was the Zamindar who had a right to lease out the land as well as to cultivate the same personally. Before the abolition of zamindari right, the then Zamindar Bhartu had given survey No. 290, area 8.50 bigha, on patta marusi, and since then plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute. Zamindari came to end in Samvat 2007, and therefore, plaintiff became the pakka krishak, and after the MPLR Code came into existence, plaintiff became the Bhumiswami. Patwari had recorded the name of plaintiff only in respect of two bigha of land and nothing was done by Patwari in respect of 6.5 bigha of land, as a result it continued to be recorded as a government land. Since plaintiff was in possession of the entire property, therefore, he could not get any information that 6.5 bigha of land is recorded as a government land. It was further claimed that the mutation of name of State Government in the revenue record in respect of survey Nos. 290/1 and 290/2 is null and void. Plaintiff is in open and hostile possession of the property in dispute. Defendant No. 4 has given patta of survey Nos. 258/1 and 258/2 to defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. Thereafter, defendants No. 1 and 3 informed the plaintiff that aforesaid land was a government land and now lease has been granted, therefore, plaintiff should vacate the land otherwise he will be forcibly dispossessed. Accordingly, plaintiff, after issuing a notice under Section 80 of CPC, filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 5. Defendant No. 4 was proceeded ex parte and did not file any written statement.

6. Defendants No. 1 to 3 filed their joint written statement and claimed that Bhartu had not given any patta to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has got a forged patta prepared with back date. Plaintiff was in possession of only two bigha of land, and accordingly, he became the Bhumiswami of two bigha of land only. Plaintiff was never in possession of 6.5 bigha of survey No. 290, and mutation of name of State Government in the revenue record was rightly done. It was further claimed by defendants No. 1 to 3 that they are in possession of the property in dispute in the capacity of Bhumiswami.

7. The Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit filed by plaintiff.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, defendants No. 1 to 3 filed the appeal which has been decreed by the Appellate Court by impugned judgment and decree dated 28/06/2008.

9. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that the ex-zamindar had granted lease of 8.5 bigha of land to the plaintiff, and after the abolition of zamindari right, plaintiff became the pakka krishak, and after the provisions of MPLR Code came into existence, plaintiff acquired the Bhumiswami rights, and accordingly, mutation of name of State Government in respect of 6.5 bigha of land