Satnam Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5544 MP

                         1
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  WP No.15510/2021
    (SATNAM SINGH & ANR. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.)

Gwalior, Dated : 16/09/2021

      Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.

      Shri Deepak Khot, learned counsel for the State.

      This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed seeking the following relief:-

             "i    That, the impugned order Annuexre P/1
      and P/2 may kindly be quashed.
             Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems
      fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also
      kindly be granted."
      It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the

petitioners had purchased a property in question. However, since the

respondents No.2 to 5 were creating hurdles, therefore, the petitioners

filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction,

which was decreed by judgment and decree dated 28/04/2010 passed

in Civil Suit No.62/2005 by Civil Judge, Class-1 Bhitarwar, District

Gwalior.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the

defendants preferred an appeal, which was allowed by judgment and

decree dated 21/01/2011 passed by First Additional District Judge,

Dabra, District Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.20A/2010 and held that

since the petitioners are not in possession of the land in dispute and

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.15510/2021 (SATNAM SINGH & ANR. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.)

they had not sought any consequential relief, therefore, the suit was

not maintainable and judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was

set aside. It is further mentioned in the writ petition that second

appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment and decree passed

by the first appellate Court was dismissed by the High Court and the

judgment and decree passed by First Additional District Judge, Dabra,

District Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.20A/2010 was affirmed. It is

submitted that thereafter, the respondents No.2 to 5 filed an

application for mutation of their names in the revenue record, which

was allowed by the Tahsildar, Tahsil Bhitarwar, District Gwalior by

order dated 26/09/2019 passed in case No.74/19-20/B-121.

Being aggrieved by the order of Tahsildar, the petitioners

preferred an appeal before the SDO, which was allowed. However,

on the appeal filed by the respondents, the Additional Commissioner,

Gwalior Division, Gwalior in case No.319/20-21/Appeal set aside the

order passed by the SDO.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the suit

filed by the petitioners was dismissed on the technical ground that in

absence of consequential relief, no decree can be passed in his favour

and, therefore, it does not mean that the sale deed executed in favour

of the petitioners had lost its effect. It is further submitted that since,

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.15510/2021 (SATNAM SINGH & ANR. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.)

they are owners by virtue of sale deed, therefore, they are entitled to

get their names mutated.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that

finding has been recorded in against of the petitioners that the

possession of the land in question was never delivered to the

petitioners and, therefore, there was no complete sale in favour of the

petitioners and thus, their names cannot be recorded in the revenue

record.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is the case of the petitioners that they had purchased land in

dispute by registered sale deed. However, the first appellate Court as

well as this High Court in second appeal No.106/2011 has held that

the suit filed by the petitioners without any consequential relief for

possession was not maintainable. Thus, there is no decree with regard

to the declaration of title of the petitioners. Once, the suit filed by the

petitioners has been dismissed and no decree has been passed in his

favour, then the petitioners cannot rely upon any of the finding given

in the judgment. In fact, it is a decree, which has a binding force and

not the finding given in a judgment. Thus, it is clear that the suit filed

by the petitioners for declaration of title in respect of the land in

dispute was dismissed.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.15510/2021 (SATNAM SINGH & ANR. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.)

Under these circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to

get their names mutated in the revenue records on any basis.

As no jurisdictional error could be pointed out by the counsel

for the petitioners. This Court is of the considered opinion that the

order dated 15/07/2021 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior

Division Gwalior does not call for any interference.

Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

                                                                      (G.S. Ahluwalia)
Abhi                                                                        Judge
       ABHISHEK
       CHATURVEDI
       2021.09.18
       11:52:40
       +05'30'