Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kundan Lal vs Smt.Ratiya & Ors. on 6 August, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18673
1 SA-10-2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 10 of 2002
KUNDAN LAL
Versus
SMT.RATIYA & ORS.
Appearance:
Shri J.P.Mishra, Advocate for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23-08-2001 passed by Additional District Judge Pichhor, District Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 15A/1991, by which judgment and decree dated 03-03-1979 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Pichhor, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 49A/1978 has been set aside.
2. Appellant is plaintiff who has lost his case from both the appellate Court. Appellant has died during the pendency of this appeal and therefore this appeal is being prosecuted by his legal representatives.
3. This second appeal was admitted by order dated 12-04-2004 on the following substantial questions of law:-
"Whether the First Appellate Court has erred in holding that there is no documentary evidence on record to prove that Bhavsingh is owner of the property when the document (Ex.P-2) is the Rin Pustika in which the name of Bhavsingh is recorded as owner, hence findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/22/2025 10:49:30 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18673 2 SA-10-2002 perverse?"
4. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiff Kundanlal filed suit for declaration of title as well as mesne profit on the ground that Bhavsingh (defendant No. 2) was the owner of Survey Nos. 1475, 1476, 1477, 1478 and 1480, total area 9 Bigha 13 Biswa situated in Village Chamraua, Tahsil Pichhor, District Shivpuri. The aforesaid property is the disputed property. It was alleged that till 24-06-1977 defendant No. 2 Bhav Singh was the owner of the said property. On 24-06- 1977 plaintiff purchased the aforesaid property by registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.1000/- and thereafter he became the owner and in possession of the said property. The property in dispute was never alienated to defendant No. 1 nor any Shikmi agreement was ever executed. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 1 was never the owner and in possession of the property in dispute. However defendant No. 1 wanted to purchase the property from defendant No. 2 but he never sold the same to defendant No.
1. Accordingly defendant No. 1 started making plans to grab the property and accordingly in connivance with the revenue officers he got his name mutated in the revenue records. On the basis of revenue records, defendant No. 1 started denying the title of plaintiff and forcibly took possession of the same and accordingly suit was filed for declaration of title, possession as well as for mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month.
5. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement and admitted that Bhav Singh (defendant No. 2) was the Krishak but it was claimed that defendant No. 1 is the Bhumiswami. It was claimed that defendant No. 2 had never executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff and the entire documents are forged Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/22/2025 10:49:30 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18673 3 SA-10-2002 documents. In the alternative it was pleaded that defendant No. 1 had acquired the rights of Bhumiswami as per the provision of Section 190 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Therefore even if it is assumed that defendant No. 2 has executed the sale deed in favour of plaintiff, then the said sale deed is not binding and is null and void to the extent of share of defendant No. 1. It was the case of defendant No. 1 that from 1949 he was in possession as Shikmi Kashtkar on behalf of defendant No. 2 and was regularly making payment of land revenue. He was also residing in the field by constructing a house. Defendant No. 1 is a poor agriculturist belonging to Scheduled Caste and with an intention to harass him the sale deed has been executed. Defendant No. 1 has acquired Bhumiswami rights by force of law. The order of mutation was challenged by plaintiff by filing an appeal but the appeal was dismissed. In special plea, it was claimed that plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are money lender and borrower. Name of defendant No. 2 was recorded as Bhumiswami in the revenue records whereas defendant No. 1 was in possession being Shikmi Kashtkar . The loan which was given to plaintiff had become barred by time therefore it could not be recovered. It was pleaded that even if defendant No. 2 and plaintiff denied that defendant No. 1 was Shikmi Kashtkar then too he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession.
6. Defendant No. 2 filed his written statement and admitted the plaint pleadings.
7. The trial court after framing issues and recording evidence decreed the suit.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/22/2025 10:49:30 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18673 4 SA-10-2002
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, defendants preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the appellate court.
9. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, it is submitted by counsel for appellants that since Bhu-Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika (Exhibit P-2) was issued in the name of Bhavsingh therefore it is clear that Bhavsingh was the owner and in possession of the property in dispute.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
11. It is well established principle of law that revenue documents are not documents of title. Revenue documents at the most can raise presumption with regard to possession of a party but they cannot be taken as documents of title. The Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Pradhan vs. Sonu Kumhar decided on 16-10-2019 in Civil Appeal No. 5919/2011 , Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) through LR vs. Arthur Import and Export Company reported in (2019) 3 SCC 191 , Narasamma and others vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 5 SCC 591 , Balwant Singh and another etc. vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) by LRs reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 , Smt. Sawarni vs. Smt. Inder Kaur reported in (1996) 6 SCC 223 , Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2021 SCC Online 802 , Suman Verma vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 12 SCC 58 , Faqruddin vs. Tajuddin reported in (2008) 8 SCC 12 , Rajinder Singh vs. State of J&K reported in (2008) 9 SCC 368 , Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2015) 16 SCC 689, T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/22/2025 10:49:30 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18673 5 SA-10-2002 Narasimha reported in (2017) 7 SCC 342 and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh reported in (2019) 13 SCC 70 has held that revenue documents are not documents of title and they are only for fiscal purposes i.e. for payment of land revenue and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries.
12. Thus it is clear that even if name of Bhavsingh was recorded in the Bhu Adhikar Evam Rin Pustika (Ex. P/2) still no presumption with regard to his ownership can be drawn on the basis of Rin Pustika.
13. Under these circumstances this Court is of considered opinion that substantial question of law framed by this Court cannot be answered in affirmative.
14. No other argument is advanced by counsel for appellant.
15. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out for interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the Court below.
16. Accordingly, judgment and decree dated 23-08-2001 passed by Additional District Judge Pichhor, District Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 15A/1991 is hereby affirmed.
17. Appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (and) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/22/2025 10:49:30 AM