Harnarayan vs Smt. Suman Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 16934 MP

                                                            1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                             ON THE 20 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                             SECOND APPEAL No. 2877 of 2018

                           BETWEEN:-
                           HARNARAYAN S/O LATE SHRI BHAGIRATH, AGED
                           ABOUT    46  YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE MALI
                           OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE PADWA
                           TEHSIL KHIRKIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI H.K. NAMDEO, ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    SMT. SUMAN BAI D/O LATE SHRI BHAGIRATH
                                 W/O HARI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: MALI VILLAGE SIRALI TAHSIL
                                 SIRALI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR HARDA
                                 HARDA MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY  SHRI  GAJENDRA           PARASHAR,      PANEL     LAWYER      FOR
                           RESPONDENT/STATE)

                                 Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                             ORDER

This second appeal appeal has been preferred by the defendant 1 challenging the judgment and decree dated 25/08/2018 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Harda in Civil Appeal No.RCA/41/2017, affirming the judgment and decree dated 23/01/2017 passed by 1st Additional Judge Link Court Khirkiya to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Harda in Civil Suit No.47-

Signature Not Verified A/2016, whereby suit filed by the respondent 1/plaintiff Suman Bai has been Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 12/21/2022 5:21:27 PM

decreed.

2. In short, the facts are that the plaintiff/respondent 1 instituted the suit for declaration of title over 1/2 share, permanent injunction and for declaring the order dated 01/08/2014 passed by Tahsildar Khirkiya null and void with regard to land Khasra No.139 area 2.023 hectare situated in village Tarapur Tahsil Khirkiya District Harda and Khasra No.392 area 0.809 hectare situated in village Padwa Tahsil Khirkiya District Harda.

3. After due consideration of the evidence available on record including the sale deed dated 16/12/1988 (Ex.D/1), which is in the name of mother of plaintiff and defendant namely Kalawati Bai, learned Courts below have held

that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/2 share in the land Khasra No.139 area 2.023 hectare situated in village Tarapur Tahsil Khirkiya District Harda and dismissed the suit with regard to Khasra No.392 area 0.809 hectare situated in village Padwa Tahsil Khirkiya District Harda.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that because after death of mother Kalawati, the name of defendant 1 was mutated by Gram Panchayat on 26/05/2000, which was never challenged by the plaintiff, therefore, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and in the light of provisions contained in Section 27 of the Limitation Act, the rights of the plaintiff, if any, have already been extinguished. Accordingly, he prays for admission of the second appeal.

5. Upon perusal of the judgement and decree of Courts below and upon perusal of the registered sale deed dated 16/12/1988, whereby the mother Kalawati Bai purchased the land Khasra No.139 area 2.023 hectare, it is clear that the plaintiff and defendant 1 both succeeded the property of their mother after her death. Merely, because the name of defendant 1 was mutated over the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 12/21/2022 5:21:27 PM

land Khasra No.139 itself does not confer any right on the defendant 1 in absence of any registered document transferring the title, because it is well settled that mutation of the name neither confers nor extinguishes the title of the real owner.

6. In view of the aforesaid, there is no illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and there being no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

7. However, no orders as to costs.

8. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE RS

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Signing time: 12/21/2022 5:21:27 PM