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

th

ON THE 13 OF JANUARY, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 2436 of 2018 BULAKHI DAS (DELETED) AND OTHERS Versus BABULAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate with Shri Saket Sharma, Shri Devendra Choubey and Shri S.K.S. Jadon - Advocates for appellants.

Shri Arvind Dudawat - Senior Advocate with Shri Arun Dudawat and Shri Rahul Jha - Advocate for respondent No.1.

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against judgment and decree dated 25/09/2018 passed by First Additional District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in RCA No.31A/2016 by which judgment and decree dated 24/06/2016 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Sironj, District Vidisha in civil suit No.13A/2015 has been set aside.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs who have lost their case from the Court below.

3. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction. According to plaintiffs, agricultural land bearing Khasra No.2032, Khasra No.2033, Khasra No.2034 and Khasra No.2039, total area 0.709 hectares situated in village Sironj, District Vidisha is a disputed property. It was pleaded that the disputed property was recorded in the names of Ramnarayan, Babulal, Vallabhdas, Pannalal, Paramsukh and Ramchand, sons of Kunwarlal, and all these persons have expired and the above-mentioned persons were the owners and in possession of the property in dispute (It is not out of place to mention here that an amendment was carried out in paragraph No.2 of the plaint and it was mentioned that the land in dispute was earlier recorded in the name of Ramnarayan, Babulal, Vallabhdas, Pannalal, Paramsukh and Ramchand. The name of father of Ramnarayan was Kunwarlal, whereas the name of father of Vallabhdas was Laljiram and the name of father of Ramchand was Gannilal, and it was also mentioned that the names of fathers of the other persons could not be ascertained.). It was claimed that Ramchand was the father of plaintiff No.1 and Vallabhdas was the grandfather of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, i.e. he was the father of late Narayan Das, who is was the father of the plaintiffs No.2 and 3. Accordingly, it was claimed that the plaintiffs are the co-owners. The defendant No.1 initiated proceedings for mutation which was registered as case No. 24A6/2011-12, and on 31/5/2012 an order was passed for mutation of name of defendant No.1. Accordingly, the name of the defendant No.1 has been recorded in the revenue record in place of the persons mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the plaint. It was further claimed that an appeal has been filed before the Court of SDO, Sironj, which is still pending. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 has no right or title in the land in dispute and accordingly the order passed by the Tehsildar on 31/5/2012 is null and void. It was further claimed that by virtue of mutation, the defendant No.1 has illegally taken possession of the property in dispute in the month of June 2012, and accordingly, the suit was filed for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and for declaration that the order dated 31/5/2012 passed by the Tehsildar is null and void. A decree for possession was also sought.

4. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement. However, in view of the amendment carried out by the plaintiffs in the plaint, the written statement was also amended and it was pleaded that although prior to 1/6/2012, the names of the aforementioned persons were mentioned in revenue record, but it was pleaded that in fact the names of father of Ramnarayan, Babulal, Vallabhdas, Pannalal, Paramsukh and Ramchand was Kunwarlal and only in that capacity, their names were mutated in the revenue records, but the name of father of Ramnarayan was Kunwarlal, the name of father of Vallabhdas was Ramjilal and the name of father of Ramchand was Gannilal.