Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Prasad vs Ajeet Singh on 1 April, 2022
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
MP-3415-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
JABALPUR
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
ON THE 01st APRIL, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP No. 3415 of 2020
Between:-
(1) Ramesh Prasad S/o Lalman, aged about 67 years,
Occupation: Agriculture, Ward No.12, Lalhetaghat
Road, Dalpatpur, Chokital Teh. and Distt. Jabalpur
(Madhya Pradesh)
(2) Panna Lal Patel S/o Lalman Patel, aged about 69 years,
Occupation: Agriculture, H.No.501, Uday Nagar No.1,
Gokalpur Ward, Madai, Vehicle Factory, Teh. and
Distt. Jabalpur, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(3) Hemraj S/o Lalman, aged about 60 years,
Occupation: Agriculture, Ward No. 12, Dalpatpur,
Chokital, Teh. And Distt. Jabalpur, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(4) Rameti Bai W/o Premlal, aged about 57 years,
Occupation: Housewife Ward No. 12, Delpatpur,
Chokital, Teh. And Distt. Jabalpur, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(5) Chammulal S/o Lalman, aged about 52 years,
Occupation: Agriculture, Ward No.12, Delpatpur, Chokital,
Teh. and Distt. Jabalpur, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(6) Jayanti Bai W/o Doman Singh, aged about 71 years,
Occupation: Housewife Village Sahajpur, Teh. Shahpura,
Jabalpur, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(7) Amar Singh Patel S/o Late Suraj Singh, aged
about 60 Years, Occupation: Agriculture Village Basha,
Bandarkola, Basha, Sagra Jhapni, Teh and Distt.
Jabalpur, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(8) Bhagwati Bai W/o Kishori, aged about 61 years,
Occupation: Housewife H.No. 196, Village Khapa Gwari,
Sahajpuri, Teh. And Distt. Jabalpur, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(9) Siyabai @ Dimiya W/o Khuman Lodhi, aged about 71
2
MP-3415-2020
years, Occupation: Housewife Village Mudhapaar,
Khamhariya, Khamariya Gosai, Lakhandon,
Distt. Seoni, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(10) Khuman Singh Patel S/o Late Meer Singh, aged about
76 years, Occupation: Not Mention Village Moodhapar,
Khamariya, Khamaria Gausai, Lakhnadon Distt, Seoni,
M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(11) Smt. Laxmi Bai W/o Shri Rajjan, aged about 50 years,
Occupation: Not Mention Para, Sahajpuri, Distt. Jabalpur,
M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(12) Prem Singh Patel S/o Khuman Singh Patel, aged about 39
years, Occupation: Not Mention Village Moodhapar,
Khamriya, Gausai, Lakhnadon, Distt. Seoni,
M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(13) Churaman Singh Patel S/o Khuman Singh Patel,
aged about 39 Years, Occupation: Not Mention Village
Moodhapar, Khamariya, Gausai Lakhnadon, Distt. Seoni,
M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(14) Littman Singh Patel S/o Late Meghraj Patel, aged about
43 years, Occupation: Agriculture H.No. 150, Behind
Forest Department, Krishna Ward Sidhi Colony,
Stationganj, Teh. and Distt. Narsinghpur, M.P.
(15) Bhanumati Varma W/o Jagdish Verma, aged about
46 years, Occupation: Housewife Ward No.15, Junnardev,
Jaamai, Teh. And Distt. Chhindwada, M.P.
AND
(1) Ajeet Singh S/o Ramsingh Lodhi, aged about 70 years,
Village Tewar, Teh. And Distt. Jabalpur M.P.
Present Address Jagdish Mandir Garha Phatak Jabalpur
M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(2) Ratnesh Singh S/o Ajeet Singh, aged about 38 years,
Occupation: Not Mention Village Tewar, Teh. and Distt.
Jabalpur, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(3) Rajendra Singh S/o Ram Singh Lodhi Occupation: Not
Mention Village Tewar, Teh. And Distt. Jabalpur, M.P.
(Madhya Pradesh)
3
MP-3415-2020
(4) Vijay Singh S/o Ram Singh Lodhi, aged about 67 years,
Occupation: Not Mention (Madhya Pradesh)
.
(5) Pratap Singh Patel S/o Not Mention, aged about 60 years,
Occupation: Not Mention Village Tewar, Teh. and Distt.
Jabalpur, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(6) Pushpa Nagpure W/o Not Mention, aged about 63 years,
Occupation: Not Mention Lvlata Mandir Parisar,
Davnibara, Post Daunibara, Godndia, Maharashtra,
(7) Smt. Kamlesh Patel W/o Late Dr. Rajendra Singh Patel
Occupation: Not Mention Krishna Kunj 124, F.H. Scheme
No 54, Vijay Nagar, Indore, M.P (Madhya Pradesh)
(8) Siddharth Patel S/o Late Dr. Rajendra Singh Patel
Occupation: Not Mention Krishna Kunj, 124-Eii, Scheme
No. 54, Vijay Nagar Indore, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
(9) Abhishek Patel S/o Late Dr. Rajendra Singh Patel
Occupation: Not Mention Building I-D, Falt No. 601,
Deffodil C.S.H. Limited, Eaden-Rose Society Bivoli,
Apposite P.V.R. Avenue, Meera Road (east) Thane Mumbai
(Maharashtra)
(10) The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thro. Collector Distt.
Jabalpur, M.P (Madhya Pradesh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Amit Verma, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kapil Jain, counsel for respondents No.1, 4, 5, 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O R D E R
The petitioners have invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India claiming a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 03.11.2020 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 32/2020 by XVIth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur and also to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents/defendants not to create any third party interest in the suit property.
2. The dispute between the parties is related to agricultural land bearing Khasra No.119, 135, 206, 241 and 269 admeasuring area 11.218 hectare, 1.655 hectare, 2.076 hectare, 0.526 hectare 4 MP-3415-2020 and 0.032 hectare respectively, total area 15.507 hectare bearing new Khasra No.278, 277/1, 277/2 and 255 admeasruing 3.410 hectare, 0.190 hectare, 5.660 hectare and 1.950 hectare respectively situated in Village Tewar Patwari Halka No.29/2018, Revenue Circle, Jabalpur No.2, Jabalpur.
3. Feeling threat over their title and possession, the petitioners approached the Civil Court claiming that their maternal grandfather (Nana) viz. Jeevan @ Jeevanlal was the owner of the land. He married Janki @ Janakiya. They had three daughters viz. Khargi Bai, Nunna Bai and Ramkali Bai. Phoolchand was son of Jankibai. Mathurabai was wife of Phoolchand. Phoolchand and Mathurabai had no issue and died intestate. After the death of Phoolchand, the suit land was recorded in the revenue record in the joint name of Mathurabai and Janki and they both were jointly carrying out agricultural activities. Mathurabai died on 25.03.1980 and after 18 years, Janki also died on 27.07.1998. The petitioners are descendants of daughters of Jeevan and Janki and thus, after the death of Jeevan, Janki, Phoolchand and Mathurabai, they became owners of the suit land.
4. In the year 1980, behind their back, on the basis of a forged Tamliknama, the defendants got their land mutated in their names fraudulently. Khargi Bai, Nunna Bai and Ramkali Bai were illiterate. Neither they nor their descendants were aware of the fraud. They came to know about it in the year 2019 and immediately filed a Civil Suit being R.C.S. No.663A/2019. They sought an injunction, which was granted vide order dated 21.01.2020 by the VIth Civil Judge Class II, Jabalpur.
5MP-3415-2020
5. The respondents/defendants challenged the order by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 32/2020, which was allowed vide order dated 03.11.2020. The order of the Civil Judge was set aside.
6. Being aggrieved by this order dated 03.11.2020, the petitioners are now before this Court.
7. The grounds to assail this order are that the findings of the learned Appellate Court are erroneous and are contrary to the material placed on record, especially the revenue record wherein possession of Janki @ Janakiya is recorded. The revenue record shows prima facie case in their favour. While concluding that the entries of revenue record do not confer any title on any party, the ld. Appellate Court missed to consider that such entries may be considered to examine the existence of a prima facie case in favour of holder of such entries. The entry of the name of Janki @ janakiya in the revenue record shows existence of a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners.
8. The ld. Appellate Court also ought to have held that there are disputed facts that can only be decided after recording of evidence of the parties and in such a situation, it is necessary to keep intact the suit property to protect the rights of the parties in conflict and to restrain any party to create third party interest till adjudication of the rights of the parties by the court of competent jurisdiction. Since, the appellate Court erred in considering such legal and factual aspects of the case; its order deserves to be set aside.
9. The case of the respondents/defendants is that Janki @ Janakiya was the wife of Jokhu and out of their wedlock, Phoolchand was born. After death of Jokhu, Janki @ Janakiya 6 MP-3415-2020 remarried Jeevan @ Jeevanlal. Thus, Phoolchand was the son of Jokhu and Janki and was not the son of Jeevan @ Jeevanlal. Khargi, Nunna and Ramkali were daughters born out of wedlock of Janki and Jeevan. The petitioners are off-springs of these daughters. Thus, the families of Late Jokhu and Late Jeevanlal are altogether different and the parties to the suit do not belong to same ascendants. At no point of time, Jeevan or his family members had been owner or possession holder of the suit property. By virtue of Section 3 of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Section 2 of the Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856, a widow after getting remarriage cannot claim her share in former husband's ancestral properties. After the death of Jokhu and his son Phoolchand and also after remarriage of Janki @ Janakiya W/o Jokhu, Mathurabai succeeded the suit property, but with the help of revenue officials, Janki @ Janakiya got her name recorded in the revenue papers but she was never the owner thereof. She made an application for partition of the suit property in the year 1965 which was dismissed by Naib Tahsildar vide order dated 07.07.1966. Against this order, no appeal was preferred, therefore, it attained finality and cannot be challenged by the petitioners after 50 years.
10. The respondents further claimed that Mathurabai adopted respondent No.1 Ajeet Singh in 1963 in accordance with social mores. Subsequently, she also executed a Will dated 04.05.1968 in his favour and handed him over the entire suit property. Tamlikhnama dated 24.12.1980 was only executed for 7 MP-3415-2020 management and maintenance of agricultural activities. Therefore, it is asserted to dismiss the petition.
11. In arguments, the ld. counsel for both the parties have reiterated the same facts which they have stated in the petition and in the reply. For the sake of brevity, I am not reiterating them again.
12. I have examined the matter.
13. The ld. Appellate Court observed that genealogical tree of Late Jokhu and Late Jeevan @ Jeevanlal are different. The suit land belonged to Jokhu. After his death, his wife Janki @ Janakiya remarried Jeevan @ Jeevanlal. By virtue of Section 2 of the Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act, 1856, she lost all her rights over the suit property.
14. Neither these facts have been controverted nor any material is available on record to consider them prima facie incorrect.
15. In view thereof, the learned Appellate Court found that neither prima facie case or balance of convenience exists in favour of the petitioners nor is there any possibility of irreparable injury to them.
16. The ld. Appellate Court has rightly observed that since there is nothing to show prima facie ownership or title over the suit property, the party claiming the same is not entitled for any relief as sought for.
17. The petitioners could not demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the order of the Appellate Court, therefore, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out.
18. The petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in (i) Mantorabai vs Paretanbai 1972 AIR (MP) 145 : 1972 MPLJ 7 8 MP-3415-2020 and (ii) Kasturi Devi vs Deputy Director of Consolidation AIR 1976 SC 2595 : (1976) 4 SCC 674. But, in both the cases, right of mother in the property of her pre-deceased son inherited from his father (husband of the claimant) has been considered while, in the present case, the petitioners are claiming right of wife in the property of her pre-deceased husband, even after her remarriage. Therefore, both the cases are distinguishable on facts and are of no avail to them.
19. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(Virender Singh) JUDGE vinod Digitally signed by VINOD VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.04.08 18:52:09 +05'30'