Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Singh vs State Of M.P. on 2 July, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14376
1 SA-563-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 2 nd OF JULY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 563 of 2012
JAGDISH SINGH AND ANOTHER
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2 / State.
Shri Sooraj Bhan Singh Lodhi - Advocate for respondent No. 3.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against
the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2012 passed by Additional District
Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri in RCA No.8A/2011 as well as judgment
and decree dated 28.02.2011 passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court
of Civil Judge, Class I, Khaniyadhana, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit
No.20A/2009.
2. Appellants are the plaintiffs, who have lost their case from both the
Courts below.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that
appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the
ground that land in dispute was inherited by plaintiffs as his predecessors
were the owner and in possession of the same. Predecessor of plaintiff No. 1,
namely, Durg Singh was allotted Patta of Survey No.540. Another Patta in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 15-07-2025
14:41:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14376
2 SA-563-2012
respect of Survey Nos. 539, 542, 543, 546, 548, and 582 was also given to
Durg Singh in the year 1926. Accordingly, Durg Singh remained in
possession of the aforesaid land. New number of the disputed property is
Khasra No.1289. The predecessor of plaintiffs had made the land cultivable
by spending money and working physically. Vahoran Singh was the son of
Durg Singh, who was the grand father of plaintiff No.1. Patta was granted
jointly in favour of Durg Singh and Masalti, who was the son of his cousin
brother, namely, Himmat Singh. Lal Singh is the son of Masalti, and Harwan
Singh, who was the son of Lal Singh, was the father of plaintiff No.2. Thus,
it is claimed that land in dispute is the property belonging to Joint Hindu
Family. Since other brothers of Masalti, namely, Gajju and Bhupat had no
interest in the disputed property and they are cultivating other lands of the
family, therefore, this suit was filed by plaintiffs – Jagdish Singh and Amol
Singh only. Khaniyadhana Riyasat was merged after State of Madhya
Pradesh came into existence, and accordingly, survey numbers were changed
to 868, 870, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, and 880 and names
of the predecessors of plaintiffs were mentioned as Pakka Krishak. Survey
numbers were again changed, and in the year 1962-63, they were re-
numbered as Survey Nos. 212, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225,
220/1842, and after settlement in the year 1984, a new survey number, i.e.,
1289, area 2.43 hectares was given. Houses of the plaintiffs are situated on
the disputed property. A Well, belonging to plaintiffs, is also situated on the
said land. Since predecessors of the plaintiffs were allotted Patta, and after
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 came into existence, plaintiffs
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 15-07-2025
14:41:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14376
3 SA-563-2012
have acquired the rights of Bhumi Swami and now defendant No. 2 without
following any due procedure of law is trying to dispossess plaintiffs.
Defendant No. 2, in an illegal manner, has allotted the land to defendants No.
3 to 12, whereas defendant No. 2 had no right to allot the disputed land to
anybody, and thus, Pattas, allotted by defendant No. 2 in favour of
defendants No. 3 to 12, are null and void to the extent of title of the
plaintiffs. Since the land was in possession of plaintiffs from the lifetime of
their predecessors, therefore, they were under impression that the names of
plaintiffs are mentioned in the revenue records. However, in the year 2002,
when defendant No. 2 started proceedings for allotment of land, then
plaintiffs filed a petition before the High Court for restraining defendant No.
2 from allotting the land and now, the suit is being filed for declaration of
title, permanent injunction, as well as for declaration that Pattas granted to
defendants No. 3 to 12 are bad and are null and void to the extent of rights of
the plaintiffs.
4. Defendant No. 2 filed its written statement and claimed that names
of defendants No. 3 to 12 are mentioned in the revenue records. Survey
numbers had changed after the allotment of Pattas. Plaintiffs have not filed
the family tree. Disputed property was never in possession and in ownership
of plaintiffs because it was all the time recorded as government land in
revenue records. Since defendants No. 3 to 12 were entitled for allotment of
land being members of scheduled tribe, therefore, possession has been given
after granting government lease to them. It was also claimed that plaintiffs
had never initiated any proceeding for cancellation of Patta. Since land in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 15-07-2025
14:41:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14376
4 SA-563-2012
dispute was a government land, therefore, defendant No. 2 had every right to
issue Pattas in favour of defendants No. 3 to 12.
5. Defendants No. 3 to 12 also filed their written statement and denied
the plaint averments. It was also claimed that Durg Singh was neither the
predecessor of plaintiffs nor any P a t t a was ever granted to him by
Khaniyadhana Riyasat. A forged Patta is being relied upon, and accordingly,
it is prayed that the suit be dismissed.
6. Trial Court, after framing issues, and recording evidence, dismissed
the suit filed by plaintiffs. However, it was found that since plaintiffs are in
possession of the property in dispute, therefore, it was observed that
defendants No. 1 and 2 shall not dispossess them without following due
procedure of law.
7. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the trial Court,
plaintiffs/appellants preferred an appeal, which too was dismissed by
judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court.
8. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below,
it is submitted by counsel for appellants that merely because plaintiffs have
not filed the family tree, does not mean that they have failed to establish their
relation with Durg Singh. The details of relationship was already mentioned
in paragraph 3, and submitted that, in fact plaintiffs are in possession of the
property in dispute and even trial Court had come to a conclusion that
plaintiffs are in possession of the property in dispute, therefore, title of the
plaintiffs should have been declared and proposed following substantial
questions of law:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 15-07-2025
14:41:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14376
5 SA-563-2012
“(i) Whether, the courts below have erred in law in dismissing
the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that plaintiffs failed to file
pedigree of his family, when relationship from Durg Singh Patta
holder and inheritance was pleaded and proved by the plaintiffs?
(ii) Whether, the courts below have erred in law in ignoring the
evidence and non-consideration of the legal presumption under
section 90 of Evidence Act, whereby the Patta P/4 and P/5 were
fully proved and there no rebuttal evidence was produced by the
respondents?
(iii) Whether, the courts below have erred in holding that how
the survey No. 1289 was re-numbered when this fact was fully
proved from the oral evidence and documentary evidence P/6 to
P/10 Khasra entries produced by the plaintiffs?
(iv) Whether, the courts below have were justified in dismissing
the suit, when plaintiffs were in settled possession over suit land as
observed by Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.1530/2002 and
plaintiffs acquired Pacca Tenancy rights and became Bhumi
Swami after enforcement of M.P. Land Revenue Code?
(v) Whether, the grant of Patta in favour of respondent No. 3 to
12 was void and without jurisdictio0n, when admittedly plaintiffs
were in possession over suit land as held by the courts below?”
9. Heard counsel for appellants.
10. So far as the question of possession is concerned, trial Court has
held that plaintiffs are in possession of the property in dispute, and therefore,
defendants No. 1 and 2 were restrained from dispossessing plaintiffs without
following any due procedure of law.
11. Plaintiffs have relied upon Patta Bandobast Rayyatvari issued by
Riyasat Khaniyadhana Exh. P-4. Trial Court has elaborately dealt with the
aforesaid document in paragraph 17 of its judgment. It was found by the trial
Court that as per Khasra Panchsala of Exh. P-7 and P-8 of Madhya Bharat, it
is clear that disputed land was a forest land of Madhya Bharat Sarkar and in
Column 5, names of Moti, Meharban, Pammam etc. were recorded as
cultivator. In Khasra of Year 1962-63, Exh. P-6, names of Jahan Singh,
Datar Singh, Moti Singh, Meharban Singh, Pancham Singh, etc. are
mentioned as the persons in possession. In Khasra Exh. P-9, which is of theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 15-07-2025
14:41:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:143766 SA-563-2012
year 1983-84, Harwan, Jahar, Datar, Raoraja have been mentioned as
encroachers. No document of partition was filed. Even re-numbering slip has
not been filed by plaintiffs to show that Khasras mentioned in Exh. P-4 were
re-numbered as 1289.
12. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding that plaintiffs
are not the owner of the property in dispute. No perversity could be pointed
out by plaintiffs in the said finding.
13. It is well established principle of law that this Court, in exercise of
power under Section 100 of CPC, cannot interfere with the findings of fact,
even if they are found to be erroneous, unless and until the findings of fact
are perverse, i.e., not based on any evidence.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali
reported in (2010) 12 SCC 740 has held as under:-
“13. A second appeal does not lie on the ground of erroneous
findings of facts based on appreciation of the relevant evidence.
The High Court should not entertain a second appeal unless it
raises a substantial question of law. It is the obligation on the court
of law to further the clear intendment of the legislature and not to
frustrate it by ignoring the same.
14. In Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros. [(1998) 6 SCC
748 : AIR 1998 SC 2730], this Court held that existence of the
substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code and entering into the
question as to whether the need of the landlord was bona fide or
not, was beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court as the issue can
be decided only by appreciating the evidence on record.
15. There may be a question, which may be a “question of fact”,
“question of law”, “mixed question of fact and law” and
“substantial question of law”. Question means anything inquired;
an issue to be decided. The “question of fact” is whether a
particular factual situation exists or not. A question of fact, in
the realm of jurisprudence, has been explained as under:
“A question of fact is one capable of being answered by way
of demonstration–a question of opinion is one that cannot be
so answered. The answer to it is a matter of speculation
which cannot be proved by any available evidence to be rightSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 15-07-2025
14:41:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:143767 SA-563-2012
or wrong.”
(Vide Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edn., p. 69, cited in
Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. Balasaheb Vikhe Patil
[(1994) 1 SCC 682], at SCC p. 705, para 34.)
16. In RBI v. Ramakrishna Govind Morey [(1976) 1 SCC 803 :
AIR 1976 SC 830] this Court held that whether the trial court
should not have exercised its jurisdiction differently, is not a
question of law or a substantial question of law and, therefore, the
second appeal cannot be entertained by the High Court on this
ground.
17. In Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann [(2001) 4 SCC 262]
this Court held that the question whether the lower court’s finding
is perverse may come within the ambit of substantial question of
law. However, there must be a clear finding in the judgment of the
High Court as to perversity in order to show compliance with the
provisions of Section 100 CPC. Thus, this Court rejected the
proposition that scrutiny of evidence is totally prohibited in the
second appeal.
18. In Sheel Chand v. Prakash Chand [(1998) 6 SCC 683 : AIR
1998 SC 3063] , this Court held that question of reappreciation of
evidence and framing the substantial question as to whether the
findings relating to the factual matrix by the court below could
vitiate due to irrelevant consideration and not under law, being
question of fact cannot be framed.
19. In Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji v. Mahadev Channabasappa
[(2000) 6 SCC 120] this Court held that it is not permissible for
the High Court to decide the second appeal by reappreciating the
evidence as if it was deciding the first appeal unless it comes to the
conclusion that the findings recorded by the court below were
perverse.
20. In Jai Singh v. Shakuntala [(2002) 3 SCC 634 : AIR 2002 SC
1428] this Court held that it is permissible to interfere even on
question of fact but it has to be done only in exceptional
circumstances. The Court observed as under : (SCC pp. 637-38,
para 6)
“6. … While scrutiny of evidence does not stand out to be
totally prohibited in the matter of exercise of jurisdiction in
the second appeal and that would in our view be too broad a
proposition and too rigid an interpretation of law not worthy
of acceptance but that does not also clothe the superior courts
within jurisdiction to intervene and interfere in any and every
matter–it is only in very exceptional cases and on extreme
perversity that the authority to examine the same in extenso
stands permissible–it is a rarity rather than a regularity and
thus in fine it can be safely concluded that while there is no
prohibition as such, but the power to scrutiny can only be had
in very exceptional circumstances and upon proper
circumspection.”
21. In P. Chandrasekharan v. S. Kanakarajan [(2007) 5 SCC 669]
this Court reiterated the principle that interference in the second
appeal is permissible only when the findings are based on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 15-07-2025
14:41:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14376
8 SA-563-2012
misreading of evidence or are so perverse that no person of
ordinary prudence could take the said view. More so, the Court
must be conscious that intervention is permissible provided the
case involves a substantial question of law which is altogether
different from the question of law. Interpretation of a document
which goes to the root of title of a party may give rise to a
substantial question of law.
22. In Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti
Garvali [(2007) 11 SCC 668 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 964] this
Court considered the scope of appeal under Section 30 of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and held as under : (SCC pp.
679-80, paras 39-40 & 42)
“39. Section 30 of the said Act postulates an appeal directly
to the High Court if a substantial question of law is involved
in the appeal.
40. A jurisdictional question will involve a substantial
question of law. A finding of fact arrived at without there
being any evidence would also give rise to a substantial
question of law. …
***
42. A question of law would arise when the same is not
dependent upon examination of evidence, which may not
require any fresh investigation of fact. A question of law
would, however, arise when the finding is perverse in the
sense that no legal evidence was brought on record or
jurisdictional facts were not brought on record.”
Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Anathula
Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy [(2008) 4 SCC 594] .
23. In Rishi Kumar Govil v. Maqsoodan [(2007) 4 SCC 465] this
Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) of the
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 and Rule 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, held that the bona fide
personal need of the landlord is a question of fact and should not
be normally interfered with.
24. There is no prohibition to entertain a second appeal even on
question of fact provided the Court is satisfied that the findings of
the courts below were vitiated by non-consideration of relevant
evidence or by showing erroneous approach to the matter.
[Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 647 : AIR
1992 SC 1604] , Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan [(1996) 5 SCC
353] , Satya Gupta v. Brijesh Kumar [(1998) 6 SCC 423] ,
Ragavendra Kumar v. Prem Machinery & Co. [(2000) 1 SCC 679
: AIR 2000 SC 534] and Molar Mal v. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd.
[(2000) 4 SCC 285] ]25 [Ed. : Para 25 corrected vide Official
Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./68/2010 dated 9-7-2010.] . Thus, the
law on the subject emerges to the effect that second appeal under
Section 100 CPC is maintainable basically on a substantial
question of law and not on facts. However, if the High Court
comes to the conclusion that the findings of fact recorded by the
courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or based on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 15-07-2025
14:41:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14376
9 SA-563-2012
irrelevant material, the appeal can be entertained and it is
permissible for the Court to reappreciate the evidence. The
landlord is the best judge of his need, however, it should be real,
genuine and the need may not be a pretext to evict the tenant only
for increasing the rent.”
15. As both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact
and this Court has also considered the evidence, which was led by the parties,
it is held that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
16. Accordingly, judgment and decree dated 09.11.2012 passed by
Additional District Judge, Pichhore, District Shivpuri in RCA No.8A/2011
as well as judgment and decree dated 28.02.2011 passed by Third Additional
Judge to the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Khaniyadhana, District Shivpuri
in Civil Suit No.20A/2009 are hereby affirmed.
17. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 15-07-2025
14:41:16
[ad_1]
Source link