Madhya Pradesh High Court
Janak Singh vs Nandlal on 15 July, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15548
1 S.A. No. 720 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 15th OF JULY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 720 of 2006
JANAK SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
NANDLAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N.K.Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Sameer Kumar Jain,
Advocate for appelllants.
Shri Dilip Awasthi, Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to
4/State.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal, under Section 100 of CPC, has been filed against
the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2006 passed by First Additional District
Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in RCA No. 50A/2005, as well as, judgment
and decree dated 29.10.2005 passed by I Civil Judge Class II, Dabra, District
Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 129A/2002.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that
plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction that
they are in possession of survey No. 275, area 56 Bigha 6 Biswa, situated in
village Ghirora, Tahsil Dabra, District Gwalior. Earlier, father of defendant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/30/2025
10:18:08 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15548
2 S.A. No. 720 of 2006
No.1, namely Mangharam, had taken the said land on lease in the name of
Krishi Udyog Mandal. Later, by virtue of condition of lease, Mangharam
became the Bhumiswami. Mangharam died in the year 1968, and thereafter,
his son Nandlal became the Karta. Mangharam had given the aforesaid land
on lease for 5 years to plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 and father of plaintiff No.2 on
the condition that plaintiffs would cultivate the land at their own cost and
would give half of the profit to Mangharam, and it was also one of the
conditions that during these 5 years, plaintiffs would not get their names
mutated in the revenue records. Accordingly, it was claimed that plaintiffs
became Shikmi Kashtkar, being in possession of the property in dispute from
July 1960 to July 1965. As plaintiffs had become occupancy tenants,
therefore, in order to protect the interest of plaintiffs, original owner
Mangharam executed a sale deed dated 27.07.1965 in favour of plaintiffs for
a consideration amount of Rs.5,500 and possession was also handed over to
plaintiffs, and accordingly, plaintiffs became the owner and in possession of
the property in dispute. It is the claim of plaintiffs that since 1/7/1960 they
are in peaceful possession of the property in dispute and accordingly
defendants have no right to dispossess the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 2-4,
namely the State of Madhya Pradesh, Collector, and SDO, are out and out to
dispossess the plaintiffs and are intending to distribute the Patta illegally to
some other persons, and accordingly it is prayed that they be declared as
Bhumiswami of the land in dispute and permanent injunction be issued
against defendants by restraining them from interfering with the possession
of plaintiffs.
Defendant No.1 did not file any written statement or lead evidence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/30/2025
10:18:08 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15548
3 S.A. No. 720 of 2006
Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 filed written statement and denied that plaintiffs
are owner and in possession of the property in dispute. It was claimed that
Patta was granted to Mangharam in the name of Krishi Udyog Mandal.
However, he had violated the conditions of Patta, and accordingly, he did
not acquire rights of Bhumiswami, and Mangharam had also no right to lease
out the land to plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the earlier contentions of
plaintiffs in the plaint that J.B.Mangharam had executed an agreement to sell
and handed over possession of land to plaintiffs on 27.07.1965 was deleted,
and thereafter they started claiming that Mangharam had leased out the
property to plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the owner of property in dispute is
the State Government. Plaintiffs have not acquired any title by way of
adverse possession. The suit has been filed in order to frustrate the provisions
of the Ceiling Act. It was further stated that it was never claimed by the
plaintiffs that property was ever sold to them by registered sale deed. In fact,
a case under the Ceiling Act was registered and draft statement was
published. Objection was raised against the draft statement. However, by
order dated 29.12.1975, the land was declared surplus and it had vested in
the State. It was further pleaded that the suit has been filed in order to
frustrate the order passed under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural
Holdings Act, 1960. Plaintiffs had filed suit on 25.05.1976, whereas the
competent Authority had already passed the order on 29.12.1975 under the
provisions of Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960,
and accordingly, the suit is barred by time.
3. The trial Court, after framing the issues, recorded the evidence and
dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/30/2025
10:18:08 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15548
4 S.A. No. 720 of 2006
the trial Court, appellants preferred an appeal which too has been dismissed
by the impugned judgment.
4. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, it is
submitted by counsel for appellants that appellants/plaintiffs had purchased
the property from Mangharam and were in possession from the year 1960,
and therefore they had acquired the rights of Bhumiswami and proposed the
following substantial questions of law:-
“i) Whether, both the courts below were justified in dismissing the
suit, when there is no specific denial by the defendants in written
statement about the possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed
land since 1.7.1960 and a decree for permanent injunction should
have been passed in favour of the plaintiffs?
ii) Whether, the plaintiffs have accrued the Bhumiswami right by
virtue of Section 169 of MP Land Revenue Code?
iii) Whether, the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit of
the plaintiffs when the defendants have not examined a single
witness to prove their case and the evidence of plaintiffs remained
un-rebutted and adverse inference should have been drawn against
defendant in light of Section 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act for
non production of calling record?
iv) Whether, the courts below were correct in exhibiting the
defendants documents as Ex-D-1 to D-7 when not even a single
person is examined by defendants to prove the same?
v) Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are
illegal and vitiated by law for having not appreciated the facts,
pleading and evidence on record correctly and properly in right
perspective and the findings are totally perverse and contrary to
law?
vi) Whether the appellate court below has acted illegally in rejecting
the application for production of documents?
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/30/2025
10:18:08 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15548
5 S.A. No. 720 of 2006
vii) Whether the court has acted illegally in holding the land to be
belonging to State when admittedly proceeding under Calling Act
was taken up against Mangha Ram which shows that the Govt.
accepted Mangha Ram as Bhumiswami of the land?”
5. According to the plaintiffs, the land in question was leased out to
Mangharam, but plaintiffs could not point out even a single document to
show that Bhumiswami rights were conferred on Mangharam. Nothing has
been placed on record to show that Mangharam had any right to further lease
out the property. It is the case of plaintiffs that Mangharam had leased out
the property for 5 years, but no document has been filed to support the said
contention. No receipt of rent was filed by plaintiffs to show that they were
depositing the land revenue. It was the case of plaintiffs that Mangharam had
sold the property to plaintiffs on 27.07.1965 for a consideration amount of
Rs. 5,500, but no registered document has been filed. In view of Section 54
of the Transfer of Property Act, if value of a property is more than Rs.100,
then it cannot be alienated without registered sale deed. Notice which was
issued by plaintiffs under Section 80 of CPC also clearly mentions that
Mangharam had sold the property to plaintiffs on 27.07.1965 by taking
consideration amount of Rs. 5,500. Thereafter the plaint was amended and
the aforesaid pleadings were deleted, and new defence was taken that
initially Mangharam gave the land in dispute to plaintiffs only for a period of
5 years, and thereafter the land was sold on 27.07.1965. No convincing
evidence could be filed by plaintiffs that they had ever perfected their title.
Furthermore, it is clear from the written statement that the proceedings under
the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act,
1960 were initiated, and the land in dispute was declared surplus and had
vested in the State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/30/2025
10:18:08 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15548
6 S.A. No. 720 of 2006
Furthermore, I.A No. 13715 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiffs under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Reply to said application was filed by the
respondent on 04.01.2007, and along with the said reply, two orders were
also filed to show that plaintiffs have already been dispossessed by order
dated 15.05.2006 passed by Naib Tahsildar, Circle-B, Cheemak, Tahsil
Dabra in Case No. 212/05-06/A-68. An order of eviction and penalty of Rs.
1,500/- was passed against the plaintiffs, and accordingly, panchnama dated
16.05.2006 was prepared to show that possession of land in dispute was
taken. By interim order dated 17.08.2006, this Court had directed the parties
to maintain status quo, and from order dated 15.05.2006 passed by Tahsildar,
Circle-B, Cheemak, Tahsil Dabra and Panchnama dated 16.05.2006, which
have been filed along with reply to IA No. 13715 of 2006, it is clear that the
plaintiffs were already dispossessed much prior to passing of interim order.
Both the Courts below have given a specific finding of fact that neither
Mangharam had any authority to lease out the property to appellants nor had
any authority to sell out the property to appellants. Furthermore, no
registered document has been filed to show that any registered sale deed was
ever executed by Mangharam. Both the courts below have given concurrent
findings of fact against the plaintiffs. Even otherwise it is well established
principle of law that even if concurrent findings of fact are erroneous, still
this Court in exercise of power under Section 100 of CPC cannot interfere
with the said findings unless and until they are found to be perverse. No
perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below could be pointed out
by counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, it is held that no substantial
question of law arises in the present appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/30/2025
10:18:08 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15548
7 S.A. No. 720 of 2006
6. Consequently, judgment and decree dated 02.08.2006 passed by First
Additional District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in RCA No. 50A/2005, as
well as, judgment and decree dated 29.10.2005 passed by I Civil Judge Class
II, Dabra, District Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 129A/2002 are hereby affirmed.
7. Appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
(and)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 7/30/2025
10:18:08 AM