Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mukesh Jain vs Hakim Singh on 20 February, 2026

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia, Hirdesh

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6617




                                                                  1                             WA-44-2026
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                          BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
                                                            &
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                                ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                                   WRIT APPEAL No. 44 of 2026
                                                        MUKESH JAIN
                                                            Versus
                                                   HAKIM SINGH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Ruchil Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
                                   Shri Ravindra Dixit- Government Advocate for the State.

                                                                      ORDER

Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyay Peeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against order dated 10/09/2025 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9229/2025.

2. Heard on I.A.No.2152/2026. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing this writ appeal.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, and the delay of 39 days is hereby condoned.

4. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that appellant had purchased a specific piece of land by registered sale-deed dated 12/07/2019. When he moved an application for mutation of his name in respect of land mentioned in sale-deed, then Tahsildar recorded his name in the revenue record as a co-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6617 2 WA-44-2026 sharer of the entire property. Since appellant was interested in getting his name mutated only in respect of land mentioned in the sale-deed, therefore, he preferred an appeal and appeal filed by appellant was allowed by SDO.

5. Being aggrieved by order passed by SDO, respondents filed an appeal which was allowed by order dated 23/05/2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.241/22-2023/Appeal. Order passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior was assailed by appellant by filing writ petition No.9229/2025 which has been dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by impugned order dated 10/09/2023.

6. Challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that since, appellant had purchased a specific piece of land, therefore, his name should have been recorded in the revenue record only in respect of said land and his name should not have been recorded as a co-sharer in the entire property of his vendor and his co- sharers. Further, co-sharers had given their consent and had also signed the sale-deed as consentors.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The undisputed fact is that the entire property out of which the specific piece of land was purchased by appellant was an undivided family property. It is true that a co-sharer can sell his share with the consent of co- sharer, but it is equally true that he cannot sell any specific piece of land and the subsequent purchaser after having purchased a share of the vendor has to file an application for partition, and he would get the possession of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 23-02-2026 15:16:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6617 3 WA-44-2026 property which will come to his share in the partition.

9. The learned Single Judge has come to conclusion that consent to sale-deed given by sisters cannot be said to be to the main clause of sale- deed.

10. Therefore, 3/5 share of vendor in an undivided family property was purchased by appellant and, therefore, at the most, it can be said that by virtue of sale-deed, appellant had become a co-sharer having step into the shoes of his vendors.

11. Under these circumstances, he cannot claim any specific piece of land, and he has to file an application for partition and would be entitled to get only that piece of land which would fall to his share after the partition takes place. Under these circumstances, if the revenue authorities have recorded the name of appellant, as the co-sharer in the entire property, then it cannot be said that any illegality was committed by revenue authorities.

12. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

                                   (G. S. AHLUWALIA)                                 (HIRDESH)
                                          JUDGE                                        JUDGE
                           PjS/-




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 23-02-2026
15:16:40