Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of M.P. vs Satyanarayan on 4 September, 2017
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1 S.A.No.543/1999
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
Second Appeal No.543/1999
State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs.
Satyanarayan (since deceased) through Dorilal and others
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, learned Government Advocate for the
appellant/State.
Shri C.L.Yadav, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(07/09/2017) Rohit Arya, J This appeal by defendant under section 100 CPC is directed against the confirming judgment and decree dated 16/09/1999 passed by I Additional District Judge, Neemuch in civil appeal No.13A/1995. Plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed by the trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 13/07/1994 in civil suit No.71A/1986.
2. This Court on 07/02/2000 while admitting the appeal has framed the following substantial questions of law:
"(1) Whether the courts below have committed the error of law in not permitting the appellant to adduce the additional evidence which was in the nature of public documents and was substantially necessary for the purpose of deciding the controversy?
(2) Whether the two courts below committed the error of law in not noticing that the respondents had not challenged the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities touching the controversy in issue and by that act they were estopped from challenging the action taken by the M.P.Govt., by which the lands were recorded in its favour?
(3) Whether the courts below have committed the error in giving the verdict on the point of jurisdiction?
(4) Whether the courts below were wrong in not condoning the delay in favour of the State of M.P., which was explained satisfactorily?
(5) Whether the impugned judgment and decree is perverse and illegal?
3. Plaintiffs have filed a suit inter alia contending that the suit land as described in paragraph 2 of the plaint has all along been of their joint ownership during the jamindari period. They were 2 S.A.No.543/1999 ploughing the fields as khud-kasht and harvesting the crops. Their names continued in the revenue record upto the year 1957-58 as bhumi swami. Thereafter in the year 1958-59, the suit land was reduced from their holding and they were shown as encroachers. An application for correction of the land record was filed on 13/05/1984 before the concerned Sub Divisional Officer but the same was rejected vide order dated 10/01/1986, as a result the instant suit was filed.
4. The defendant filed written statement and denied plaint allegations inter alia contending that after coming into force of Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, Samat 2008 (Year 1951), all agricultural lands stood vested in the State and, therefore, the plaintiffs have no right, interest or claim over the suit land. With the aforesaid contentions, the suit was sought to be dismissed.
5. Trial Court framed issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties and allowed them to lead evidence.
6. Trial Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence has returned the finding that the plaintiffs were joint khatadars in respect of the suit land prior to coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, 'the MPLRC') as khud-kasht and thereafter they acquired the status of occupancy tenants after coming into force of MPLRC in terms of section 185 of the MPLRC as a result acquired the bhumi swami rights under section 190 of the MPLCR. The trial Court has referred to and relied upon the exhibits P/1 to P/8 and D/2 to D/9 in support of the aforesaid findings.
7. The first appellate Court has affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court from paragraphs 15 to 18 of the judgment and reiterated the exhibits referable to such findings in paragraph 16 thereof which is quoted below:
"16@ oknh us vius mDr dFku ds leFkZu esa o"kZ 1981&82 ls o"kZ 1985&86 ds [kljs dh izfrfyfi izn'kZ ih@01 vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh uhep dks izLrqr vkosnu i= dh izfrfyfi izn'kZ ih@02] rglhynkj izfrosnu izn'kZ ih@03] iVokjh fjiksVZ o iapukek izn'kZ ih@04 ls ih@06] laor 2004 dh tekcanh dh izfrfyfi izn'kZ ih@07 rFkk laor 2013 ls 2015 ds [kljs dh izfrfyfi izn'kZ ih@08 lk{; esa izLrqr dh gSA lk{kh d¡ojyky ¼ok-lk-&03½ us o"kZ 1948 ls iVokjh gksuk crkdj oknh ds dFku dk leFkZu djrs gq, ;g crk;k gS fd izn'kZ ih@01 rFkk izn'kZ ih@07 ds [kljs o tekcanh dh izfrfyfi mlds }kjk iznku dh xbZA oknhx.k ds vkosnu ij ls rglhynkj tkon ds vkns'k ls mlus izn'kZ ih@05 ds iapukesa ds lkFk izn'kZ ih@04 vkSj izn'kZ ih@06 dh fjiksVZ rglhynkj dks izLrqr dh FkhA ftl ij olwyh iVsy nsojke o iapx.k us gLrk{kj fd;s FksA oknhx.k tkxhjnkjh ds ekewyh eks:lh ds :i esa tkxhjnkjh lekfIr ds iwoZ ls o"kZ 1958&59 rd fookfnr Hkwfe ij dkfct jgdj Qly cksrs Fks vkSj ?kkl dkVrs FksA o"kZ&1959 esa 3 S.A.No.543/1999 fookfnr Hkwfe oknhx.k ds [kkrs ls de djds ljdkjh bUnzkt dh xbZA lk{kh nsojke ¼ok-lk-&02½ us Hkh olwyh iVsy ds :i esa izn'kZ ih@04 ls izn'kZ ih@06 ds nLrkostksa ij gLrk{kj gksuk crkdj oknh lR;ukjk;.k ds dFku dk leFkZu fd;k gSA "
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the first appellate Court has committed illegality while rejecting the application filed under Order 41 rule 27 CPC alongwith documents merely for the reason that the documents though in possession of the appellant prior to filing the appeal but were not submitted alongwith the appeal. However, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out relevancy of the documents in the context of exhibits P/1 to P/8 and D/2 to D/9 whereunder the plaintiffs have all along been shown to be in possession and bhumi swami prior to coming into force of the MPLRC and only in the year 1958-59, their names were scored out as bhumi swami and substituted as encroachers. Moreover, the documents sought to be placed on record were subsequent to the year 1958-59.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by both the Courts below are impregnable. Hence, no illegality is found in the judgments and decrees so passed by Courts below. Under such circumstances, the first and fourth questions framed are answered in the negative and in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Further, as the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction by virtue of their right as bhumi swami recognized under the MPLRC, even if the order passed by the revenue authority rejecting the application for change of name in the revenue record was not challenged before the higher revenue authorities, the said order was not binding upon the trial Court in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The principle of estoppel has no application in the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case, as the plaintiff is always at liberty to seek declaration of title by filing the civil suit irrespective of rejection of the application for change of name in the revenue record by the revenue authorities. Accordingly, the second, third and fifth questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents.
10. Consequently, the appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Rohit Arya)
Judge
b/- 07/09/2017
4 S.A.No.543/1999
S.A.No.543/1999
07/09/2017
Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, learned Government Advocate for the appellant/State.
Shri C.L.Yadav, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the respondents.
Arguments heard.
Judgment passed, signed and dated separately.
(Rohit Arya)
b/- Judge