Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rampal Shukla vs Saukhilal on 31 October, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
ON THE 31st OF OCTOBER, 2022
SECOND APPEAL No. 1397 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
RAMPAL SHUKLA S/O LATE VISHWANATH
PRASAD SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
DWARKA NAGAR,BEHIND MEDCAL
U.G.KLHOSTEL TAHSIL HUJUR, REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
1. SAUKHILAL S/O PARMESHWAR DEEN
CHAMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BAHELIYA
TAHSIL HUJUR DISTT.REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MAN VISHRAM CHAMAR S/O RAMKUMAR
CHAMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, BAHELIYA
TAHSIL HUJUR DISTT.REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. RAJ BAHORAN S/O NARMADA RAM, AGED
ABOUT 68 YEARS, BAHELIYA TAHSIL HUJUR
DISTT.REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. NAIB TAHSILDAR BAHELIYA, HUZUR,
DISTT.REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE STATE OF M.P. DISTT.REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE APPEARED)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 11/2/2022
2:18:19 PM
The present appeal is pending admission since 2006 and has been filed
by the appellant against two concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as
First Appellate Court. By judgment and decree dated 17.04.2006 passed by the
Court of learned 4th Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Appeal No.08-
A/2006 filed by the appellant herein, the same was dismissed and thereby the
order passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I in C.S.No.238-A/2000 between
the appellant and the respondents was dismissed by the learned trial Court.
The plaintiff/appellant herein filed a civil suit for declaration and
permanent injunction in 1992. The land in question is survey no.75 in village
Baheliya Tahsil Hujur, District-Rewa admeasuring 3.63 acres. The cause of
action arose on 07.12.1991, the land in question was allotted to respondent
nos.1 and 2 herein by the government.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit claiming that he had purchased the suit
property from respondent/defendant no.3 Rajbahoram by way of a sale deed on
17.05.1985 and Rajbahoram himself had purchased the property from the
original owner Ramdas sometimes in the year 1964-65. The learned trial Court
and the Appellate Court, have held against the appellant herein firstly on the
ground that the appellant had not been able to substantiate that Rajbahoram
from whom he had purchased the suit property possessed the title to the said
suit property, inter-alia, it also held that the said land could not have been
transferred to Rajbahoram by Ramdas on account of proceedings under the
M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling
Act"). According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the substantial
question that arises in this case is "Whether the learned Courts below were
justified in finding that the land in dispute is surplus land under the Ceiling
Signature Not Verified
Act. Another substantial question of law framed by the appellant is "Whether in
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 11/2/2022
2:18:19 PM
the absence of summoning the original record of ceiling case for which the
appellant herein had moved an application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC
and which was rejected, could justify the finding by the learned Courts below
with regard to the said land which was allotted to the respondent nos.1 and 2
as surplus land under the Ceiling Act."
Arguments have been forwarded by the learned counsel on both sides.
However, this Court is of the view that if the first question which is whether the
absence of title of the respondent no.3 is substantiated before the learned trial
Court, the second question would be rendered academic. In this regard, it
would be essential to refer to the statement of the respondent/defendant no.3
who was examined as PW-2 before the learned trail Court. Learned counsel for
the appellant has read out the contents from paragraph-2 of the evidence of
PW-2 in which he has admitted, having purchased the suit property from
Ramdas in the year 1964-65. He further says that he has taken possession of the
said property and on 14.05.1985 by way of a registered sale deed he had sold
the same to the appellant/plaintiff. Paragraph-3 has also been read out by the
learned counsel for the appellant in which the witness has stated that no
proceedings under the aforementioned Ceiling Act were ever initiated against the
original owner Ramdas and neither were there any ceiling proceedings initiated
against him which were in progress when he sold the land to the appellant.
In paragraph-6 of his testimony, respondent no.3/defendant no.3 states
that he does not remember the consideration amount given by him to the
original owner Ramdas while purchasing the said property. However, it is
essential to mention here that in the same paragraph he remembers the exact size
of the land which is 3.63 acres even though he had purchased it 20-25 years
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 11/2/2022
2:18:19 PM
before. In paragraph-8, the same witness is able to recall from memory the
metes and bounds of the property and the persons who had title to the land
adjoining to the suit property who he has mentioned by name.
Under the circumstances, the statement in cross-examination that he is
unable to recall consideration amount is unacceptable on anvil of
preponderance of probabilities. Further, the fact that in paragraph-10 of the
cross-examination he is able to recall the consideration amount received by him
while selling the suit property to the appellant herein which is Rs.14500/- but he
is unable to recall the consideration amount that he himself gave to Ramdas
while purchasing the land is unbelievable. It is also necessary to mention here
that the statements have been made by respondent no.3 purely from memory
without reference to any document otherwise the same would have been marked
as exhibit or reference to an exhibit shown in his testimony, therefore,
appreciating the statements in its entirety, it appears that he may have been in
possession of the said property without title. Therefore, the view taken by the
Courts below that the appellant before this Court was unable to establish the
respondent no.3/defendant no.3 had a title with regard to the suit property
which he could legitimately transfer to the appellant herein. Therefore, the view
taken by the Courts below is reasonable.
In view of the above, the arguments pertaining to the findings of the
Appellate Court that the said property could not have been transferred by
Ramdas to respondent no.3 in view of the ceiling proceedings against the said
land which according to the learned counsel for the appellant was based on no
material evidence as record that was sought to be called by plaintiff by moving
an application under Order 13 Rule 10 was also rejected, has been rendered
academic. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the views arrived by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 11/2/2022
2:18:19 PM
learned Courts below is a plausible view in the light of the evidence that has
come on record and the same does not raise a substantial question of law which
this Court would have considered and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN)
JUDGE
rk.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVIKANT
KEWAT
Signing time: 11/2/2022
2:18:19 PM
