Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lokesh Singh (Dead) Through Lrs 1. ... vs Ramadhar (Dead) Through Lrs (I) ... on 7 December, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 7 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 1960 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. LOKESH SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS 1.
SHRIMATI PREMA SINGH W/O LATE SHRI
LOKESH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, GRAM
FUTAUGHA (CHHULHA) POST BABUPUR, TEHSIL
RAGHURAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KULDEEP SINGH (DEAD) S/O LATE LOKESH SINGH
VAIDEHI SINGH W/O LATE SHRI KULDEEP SINGH
R/O GRAM FUTAUGHA (CHHULHA) POST
BABUPUR TEHSIL RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAHUL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. SONAM
SINGH W/O LATE SHRI RAHUL SINGH R/O GRAM
FUTAUGHA (CHHULHA) POST BABUPUR TEHSIL
RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SMT. MANO SINGH D/O LATE SHRI LOKESH
SINGH W/O RAJENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38
YEAR S , R/O GHUGHCHIHAI POST RAMSTHAN
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MANORMA SINGH D/O LATE SHRI LOKESH
SINGH W/O UTTAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 36
YEAR S, R/O GRA,, KARAUNA BAHADURNAGAR
POST SEN PASHCHIMPARA TEHSI DISTRICT
KANPUR (UTTAR PRADESH)
6. SMT. PURNIMA SINGH D/O LATE SHRI LOKESH
SINGH W/O SHAILENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 34
YE A R S , SAKINHADA GRAM GAUTA TEHSIL
PIPALDA DISTRICT KOTA (RAJASTHAN)
7. SMT. SWARNIMA SINGH D/O LATE SHRI LOKESH
SINGH W/O SHRI RAGHURAJ SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO. 235 LOTUS
GARDEN COLONY KHANDWA ROAD TEJAJI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 12/9/2023
5:17:14 PM
2
NAGAR TEHSIL INDORE DISTRICT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI AMIT KHATRI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAMADHAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS (I)
RAMKARAN S/O LATE SHRI RAMADHAR, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, FUTODHA FUTAUGHA HAL
MUKAM DWARI GALI NO. 5, DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VINOD S/O LATE SHRI RAMADHAR, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, R/O FUTAUGHA HAL MUKAN
MUKHTIYARGANJ DISTRICT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PANKAJ RAJ - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT -3 /STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2022 passed by 8t h District
Judge, Satna in Civil Appeal No.29-A/2014 affirming the judgment and decree
dated 30.09.2014 passed by 6th Civil Judge Class-I, Satna in Civil Suit No.89-
A/2014 whereby Courts below have decreed the respondents/plaintiffs' suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land
Khasra No.180 area 0.76 dismil, situated in Village Futondha, Tahsil
Raghurajnagar, Satna and also dismissed the counter claim filed by the
appellant/defendant 1 for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the
basis of adverse possession.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that learned Courts
below have committed illegality in holding the plaintiffs to be
owner/bhoomiswami and in possession of the suit land on the basis of revenue
entries which are not document of title and at the same time, have committed
illegality in dismissing the counter claim, because the defendants are in
possession of the suit land since the time of their ancestors. He submits that
although there is no documentary evidence showing possession of the
defendants but on the basis of cogent and unrebutted evidence, possession of
the defendants over the suit land is proved. With the aforesaid submissions he
prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and perused the
record.
4 . Perusal of the khasra entries available on record from the year 1985 till
the date of filing of the suit (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/8), shows that there is entry of the
name of plaintiffs and their ancestor Daddi Kahar. In the khasra entry of the
year 1969-1974 also submitted on behalf of the defendants, name of Daddi
Kahar is recorded in column number 3. At the same time, the defendants are
also claiming rights over the suit property on the basis of adverse possession
whereby it can be inferred that the defendants are admitting the plaintiffs to be
Bhoomiswami of the suit property.
5. It is well settled that under Section 117 of the M.P Land Revenue Code
1959, there is presumption of correctness of the revenue entries until and unless
they are rebutted by other documentary or oral evidence. In the present case, no
other revenue entry has been filed on record by defendants showing recording
of their name, therefore, learned Courts below have not committed any illegality
in accepting the available revenue entries to be correct.
6. Upon due consideration of the documentary and oral evidence available
on record, learned Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs are
owner/Bhoomiswami and in possession of the suit property. It is well settled
that the finding on the question of possession is a pure finding of fact and is not
liable to be interfered with in the limited scope of Section 100 CPC.
7 . Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
