Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akant Kumar Jain vs Smt Kiran Jain on 16 December, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33192
1 WA-3545-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 16th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 3545 of 2025
AKANT KUMAR JAIN
Versus
SMT KIRAN JAIN
Appearance:
Shri S.K. Shrivastava-Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vibhor Kumar Sahu - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak 1 . Heard on I.A. No.15142/2025 , an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
2. As per the office report, this appeal is barred by 771 days.
3. Counsel for appellant informs this Court that earlier Review Petition was preferred taking exception to order dated 31/07/2023 passed in MP No.3080/2023 on 31/01/2024. That Review Petition (RP No.115/2024) got decided on 2/12/2025. Thereafter, this appeal is preferred. Interregnum period is treated as period of delay; whereas, appellant was pursuing the proceedings in bona fide manner before the competent Court of law. Therefore, delay is to be seen from that perspectives and be condoned in the interest of justice. Although delay caused but appellant pursuing litigation bonafidely.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY Signing time: 22-12-2025 12:28:49NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33192 2 WA-3545-2025
4. Counsel for respondent opposed the prayer and prays for dismissal of the application.
5. Considering the submissions, the contents of the application and the reasons mentioned in the application, sufficiency of cause is made out, therefore, I.A. No.15142/2025 is hereby allowed and the delay of around 190 days (erroneously mentioned as 771 days) in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned in the interest of justice.
6. Heard finally, with consent.
7. The instant appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by appellant/petitioner taking exception to order dated 31/07/2023 passed by learned Writ Court in Misc. Petition No.3080/2023; whereby, learned Writ Court though allowed the petition preferred by appellant/petitioner but remanded the matter back to the First Appellate Court (SDO) to decide the First Appeals on merits. This writ appeal also challenges the order dated 02/12/2025 passed in RP No.115/2024 preferred by appellant/petitioner seeking review of order dated 31/07/2023 passed in Misc. Petition No.3080/2023.
8. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the disputed land originally belonged to late Deepak Kumar Jain and land is situated in villages Ajeetpur and Jiwajipur, Tehsil Basoda, District Vidisha. The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, though relations between them were strained and she had allegedly deserted him. During his lifetime, late Deepak Kumar Jain executed a registered Will dated 05/01/2007 in favour of the present Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY Signing time: 22-12-2025 12:28:49 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33192 3 WA-3545-2025 appellant, his nephew, and subsequently died on 03/12/2007. After his death, the appellant applied for mutation of his name on the basis of the said Will. Though the Tehsildar initially rejected the application, the Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 06/10/2009, remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Pursuant thereto, the Tehsildar, after examining the material on record, held the property to be self-acquired and allowed the mutation in favour of the appellant by order dated 22/12/2009, which was acted upon and attained finality. After an unexplained delay of about 13 years, the respondent challenged the remand and mutation orders without disclosing that appeals against final orders of Tahsildar have been preferred and the respondent had also preferred an appeal against the same. While respondent's appeal against the mutation order was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the Additional Commissioner, by order dated 17/05/2023, set aside all previous orders, leading to filing of the Misc. Petition, the Review Petition and thereafter, the present Writ Appeal.
9. It is the submission of counsel for appellant/petitioner that the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court, insofar as it remands the matter to the First Appellate Authority (SDO) is illegal and unsustainable, as the earlier remand order dated 06/10/2009 had already been executed and culminated in a final mutation order dated 22/12/2009, which attained finality. Once the remand stood exhausted, it could not have been reopened, particularly after an unexplained delay of 13 years. The Additional Commissioner acted beyound its jurisdiction in entertaining the belated appeals and setting aside the concluded proceedings and though the learned Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY Signing time: 22-12-2025 12:28:49 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33192 4 WA-3545-2025 Writ Court rightly quashed that order, it erred in remanding the matter again to First Appellate Court (SDO) despite no surviving issue for adjudication. It is also submitted that a Civil Suit preferred by appellant/petitioner against respondent (aunt of appellant) for declaration and permanent injunction by way of RCSA No.209/2023 is pending before III Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha and temporary injunction is being granted vide order dated 21/12/2023 ( Annexure A/11 ), rendering further remand proceedings before revenue authorities a futile exercise. Hence, it is prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned order insofar as it remands the matter to First Appellate Authority (SDO) be set aside.
10. Per contra, counsel for respondent opposed the prayer and prays for dismissal of this appeal with submission that the findings recorded by learned Writ Court are based on facts available on record; therefore, impeccable and the conclusion has been drawn after applying the correct principles of law.
11. Heard the counsel for parties and perused the record appended thereto.
12. This is a case where appellant has filed Civil Suit against respondent (aunt of appellant) for declaration and permanent injunction by way of RCSA No.209/2023 pending before III Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha. According to appellant, temporary injunction is being granted vide order dated 21/12/2023 (Annexure A/11). Therefore, when this Civil Suit is pending before parties in respect of the same properties which are subject matter of this writ appeal, then it is in the fitness Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY Signing time: 22-12-2025 12:28:49 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33192 5 WA-3545-2025 of things that Civil Suit must proceed and reach to a logical conclusion so that respective rights of the parties may be crystallised.
13. The SDO (Revenue) is not the Appropriate Authority to decide the question of mutation once parties are at loggerheads. This aspect has been discussed in Full Bench of this Court in Anand Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2025 1 MPLJ 646. Relevant observation is as under :-
75. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that Tehsildar cannot reject the application for mutation at threshold on the ground that it is based upon will. However, in view of detailed discussion made by us above, it would be appropriate to summarize our conclusions serially as under:-
1) The Tehsildar while dealing with cases of mutation under sections 109 and 110 MPLRC between private parties, does not perform judicial or quasi-judicial functions, but only performs administrative functions and therefore, he is not authorized to take any evidence for the purpose of deciding applications for mutation.
2) The Tehsildar can entertain application for mutation on the basis of will. However, it would be obligatory upon him to enquire about the legal heirs of the deceased and notice them in view of provisions of section 110(4) MPLRC.
3) Sections 109 and 110 have to be read alongwith Section 111 M.P.L.R.C. and a bare reading of Section 111 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY Signing time: 22-12-2025 12:28:49 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33192 6 WA-3545-2025 M.P.L.R.C. leads to conclusion that where-ever rights of private parties are involved, then it will only be for the Civil Court to adjudicate the disputed cases. The jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers in the matters of mutation in Revenue records, is merely administrative.
4) A dispute as to validity of will, competence of testator to execute will or existence of two rival wills of testator, or a dispute as to validity of any other non- testamentary registered title document as enumerated in Form-1 of Mutation Rules of 2018 would create a dispute relating to any right which is recorded in the record of rights and arising during either mutation or correction of entry would be such a dispute.
5) In case any dispute as mentioned in para (4) above is raised between private parties, then the Tehsildar would not have any competence to decide the dispute and it would be for the parties to approach the civil court to get the dispute adjudicated, in terms of detailed discussion contained in para-74 above. Such matters will either be disposed or kept pending and reported to the Collector in terms of Section 110(7) MPLRC by the Tehsildar, in the manner discussed in detail in this order.
6) The decision in disputed cases as contemplated under Section 110 (4) M.P.L.R.C. does not give any authority Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY Signing time: 22-12-2025 12:28:49 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33192 7 WA-3545-2025 to the Tehsildar to decide such dispute and assume powers of Civil Court by going into the authenticity of will or of any non-testamentary registered title document and that outer time limit has to be read only to determine whether a dispute exists in the matter and granting opportunity to parties to approach the Civil Court. If such approach to Civil Court is not made or despite approach no injunction is granted by Civil Court, then mutation will be carried out on basis of succession by ignoring disputed testamentary document and in case of non-testamentary registered title documents, by giving effect to such document. Once a dispute in the matter of competence of testator, validity of the will (whether registered or not) or into a non-testamentary registered title document or dispute as to title is raised before Civil Court and injunction is granted, then the only course open for the Tehsildar would be not to proceed further and to report the matter to the Collector under Section 110(7) of MPLRC.
7) In case no dispute is raised by any legal heirs of the testator or by any other person in the matter of competence of testator to execute the will and authenticity of the will, then it would be open for the Tehsildar to carry out the mutation in such undisputed cases. However, even in those cases subsequent Civil Suit will not be barred.
8) In case where issue of Government having interest Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY Signing time: 22-12-2025 12:28:49 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33192 8 WA-3545-2025 in the land crops up in course of mutation, then the Tehsildar may decide that question in terms of section 111 readwith Section 257 (a) MPLRC by exercising jurisdiction which is wider than administrative one and may take evidence, but in those cases also, no enquiry as to validity of will or of any registered title document can take place before the Tehsildar.
14. In view thereof, it is apposite that the matter of remand by way of impugned order be stayed and no further proceedings be undertaken by the SDO (Revenue). The impugned order dated 31/07/2023 passed by learned Writ Court stands modified to this extent. However, it is made clear that the fate of the parties shall be subject to final outcome of the Civil Suit referred above and parties shall be bound by the judgement passed by the trial Court and thereafter, revenue authorities shall proceed in accordance with law.
15. The instant writ appeal stands allowed to the extent above and disposed of accordingly.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
(Dubey)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNEEL DUBEY
Signing time: 22-12-2025
12:28:49