Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bihari Lal vs Mst.Kashibai on 11 July, 2022
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2022
SECOND APPEAL No. 207 of 1996
Between:-
1. BIHARI LAL (DEAD) BY LRs.
(a). SMT. SAKHI BAI TIWARI, WD/O SHRI
BIHARILAL , AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
(b). RAJKISHORE TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
(c). BRIJKISHORE TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
(d). NANDKISHORE TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS,
(e). KRISHNA KUMAR TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS,
Nos. (b) to (e) ALL SONS OF LATE BIHARILAL
AND PO DHANWARA AND R/O RAIGAWA,
TAHSIL MAIHAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
(f). SMT. MANORAMA PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 47
YEARS, W/O SHRI RAJNDRA PRASAD PANDEY
R/O BHARAULI TAHSIL MAIHAR DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(g). SMT. SAROJ CHAUBEY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O SHRI CHANDRAKANT CHOUBEY R/O SILA
BADI, VANKAT ALLAHABAD (UTTAR PRADESH)
(h). SMT. ASHALATA PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 43
YEARS, W/O RAMESH KUMAR PANDEY, R/O
JYNAUDI VIJAY RAGHAVGARH, KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
(i). SMT. SWARNLATA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
W/O SHRI RAMESH MISHRA, R/O UCHEHRA
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
.....APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by
RASHMI RONALD (BY SHRI ANURAG CHOUBEY, ADVOCATE)
VICTOR
Date: 2022.07.13
17:26:51 IST
2
AND
MST.KASHIBAI (DEAD) BY LRs.
(a) BANKE SINGH (DEAD)
(b) ASHARANI WD/O KAMLESH SINGH, AGED 34
YEARS R/O MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (M.P.)
(c) GIRJA (DEAD)
(d) MEERA, AGED 38 YEARS W/O LACHHU
SINGH R/O SEMRA TAHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(e) SHAKUN, AGED 36 YEARS W/O RAM SINGH
R/O DOGARIA, TEHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT
SATNA (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 04/12/1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Maihar District Satna in Civil Appeal No.31-A/1985, whereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 20/09/1985 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Maihar District Satna in Civil Suit No.50-A/84, whereby civil suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed.
2. In short, the facts of the case are that, the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and for declaring the order dated 02/06/1983 passed by SDO null and void with regard to land Khasra Nos.1005 and 1006 total area 12 11/3 situated in Mauja, Raingwa Tehsil Maihar District Satna. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed 27/10/1961 (Ex.P/1) from predecessor in title Shyamlal and since then he is in cultivating possession. It is alleged that the defendant claiming the disputed land belonging to her father, filed an application 3 before the SDO under Section 170(1)(a) of MPLRC, in which the plaintiff appeared and contended that he has purchased the property from Shyamlal who was owner of the entire land and was recorded as Bhumiswami. He further alleged that he is in possession of the land for more than 20 years but without taking into consideration, the allegations made by the plaintiff, the SDO has passed order dated 02/06/1983 regarding dispossession of the plaintiff from part of the land in question. It is also alleged that the plaintiff being in possession for more than 12 years has acquired title by adverse possession also accordingly, he prayed for decree in his favour.
3. Despite service of summons, the defendant did not appear and file written statement and was proceeded ex-parte.
4. Learned trial Court after recording ex-parte evidence and after perusal of the oral and documentary evidence found that the name of Shyamlal (predecessor in title of Biharilal) was wrongly recorded in the revenue papers over the entire area of the revenue land while Shyamlal was having only 12 aana share and accordingly, learned trial Court held that because the name in the revenue record was recorded wrongly, therefore, the order passed by SDO on 02/06/1983 is not liable to be interfered with.
5. Upon filing appeal, learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 04/12/1996.
6. This appeal was admitted on 27/06/1996 on the following substantial questions of law:
1) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Ex.P/4) dated 4 02/06/1983 directing reversion of the land under Section 170-A in favour of the respondent is coram non-judice?
2) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case in view of Section 3 of the M.P. Act No.19 of 1992 would the consequences under Section 170-B ensue even if the details of the transaction not furnished to the Sub-Divisional Officer?
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the SDO has wrongly passed the order dated 02/06/1983 contrary to the provisions under Section 170(B) of the MPLRC and the transaction in between Shyamlal and the plaintiff was not done in contravention of the aforesaid provision, therefore, the order passed by the SDO on 02/06/1983 was liable to be declared null and void. Resultantly, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are also liable to be set aside.
8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
9. Although, this Court has formulated the substantial questions of law with regard to the provisions contained under Section 170(B) of MPLRC considering the sale deed (Ex.P/1) dated 27/10/1961 to be a sale deed executed by Shyamlal with regard to entire area of the land but from bare perusal of the sale deed in question, it is clear that it was executed on 27/10/1961 only with regard to share of Shyamlal and the entire land in question was not sold by Shyamlal.
10. It appears from the impugned judgment and decree so also the order passed by the SDO that all the authorities have considered the sale deed to be a sale deed of the entire area of land in question but bare perusal of the sale deed, it is clear that only the area 12 aana was sold by Shyamlal of which 5 undisputedly was owner/Bhumiswami in possession.
11. On the basis of this sale deed dated 27/10/1961, the name of Shyamlal was recorded vide Khatoni (Ex.P/3) whereas on the basis of sale deed, the name of Shyamlal ought to have been recorded only on the share which he sold by way of sale deed.
12. As the sale deed was executed only with regard to 12 aana, therefore, the entry made in the revenue record with regard to the entire area of the land in question that to without any order passed by the competent authority, the SDO has rightly passed the order dated 02/06/1983 and there is no illegality in that order which has rightly been held to be a valid document by learned Courts below.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the substantial question of law framed by this Court are not arising in the present second appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are upheld. However, no order as to costs.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE RS