Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan Sahu vs Tilakwati Bai on 14 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 14 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 1229 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. PAWAN SAHU S/O NATTHU SAHU, AGED ABOUT 48
YE A R S , VILL RAKHIKOL TAH JANNARDEO,
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. MUNNIBAI WD/O LATE RAGGHU SAHU,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, VILL RAKHIKOL TAH
JANNARDEO, CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI PREM NARAYAN VERMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. TILAKWATI BAI W/O SHRI MANAK, AGED ABOUT
73 YEARS, VILL KANHARGAON DIST.
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUMARI BAI W/O GANESH, AGED ABOUT 68
YE A R S , CHHADBI, TEH. UMRETH, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. BISSO BAI W/O SHRI MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 58
YE A R S , MANDUA DARBAI, THE. PARASIYA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PUSAU S/O DASRAIYA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
UMRETH HETI, TEH UMRETH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. KHEMCHAND S/O LATE RAGGHU SAHU, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, RAKHIKOL(DAMUA), THE.
JUNNARDEO (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RAJESH SHAU S/O LATE RAGGHU SAHU, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, RAKHIKOL(DAMUA), THE.
JUNNARDEO (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Signing time: 12/15/2023
5:57:09 PM
2
7. STATE OF M.P., THROUGH THE COLLECTOR,
DISTT. CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SURDEEP KHAMPARIYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS 1-3)
(BY MS. GARIMA TIWARI, PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT-STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants 2-3/appellants
challenging the judgment & decree dtd. 06.09.2016 passed by 1st Additional
District Judge, Chhindwara in Regular Civil Appeal No.72A/2013 affirming the
judgment & decree dtd. 13.09.2013 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Parasiya,
District Chhindwara in Civil Suit No.32A/2009 whereby respondents 1-
3/plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaring
the sale deed dtd. 29.10.2001 null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, has
been decreed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 2-3 submits that although
land in question belonged to father of plaintiffs and defendant 1 namely
Dasraiya, but after death of father Dasraiya, the land was mutated in the name of
Pusau in the knowledge of plaintiffs and they never challenged mutation of
defendant 1 Pusau, therefore, believing such mutation, the defendants 2-
3/appellants purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed dtd. 29.10.2001
after making payment of entire consideration amount to defendant 1 Pusau. He
also submits that the plaintiffs were given their share at the time of their marriage
and now they have no right in the suit property and learned Courts below
without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, have committed
illegality in decreeing the suit. With these submissions, he prays for admission
of the second appeal.
3. Learned counsels for the respondents 1-3 and 5 support the impugned
judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below and prays for dismissal
of the second appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Undisputedly, the land Khasra No.85/1 area 1.615 hectare belonged to
father of the plaintiffs and defendant 1 namely Dasraiya, who died without
executing any regd. document of transfer in favour of Pusau, therefore, after
death of Dasraiya, plaintiffs and defendant 1, all four persons succeeded the
property having equal 1/4-1/4 share. It is well settled that mere mutation of name
does not confer any title, therefore, it cannot be said that on the basis of
mutation, defendant 1 Pusau became owner/bhoomiswami of the suit land.
6. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not party to the sale deed, therefore,
defendant 1 alone had no right to execute sale deed of the suit land in excess of
his 1/4 share. Taking into consideration aforesaid aspect of the matter, learned
Courts below have decreed the suit holding the plaintiffs/respondents 1-3 to be
entitled for 1/4-1/4 share each in the suit property and accordingly declared the
sale deed dtd. 29.10.2001 to be null and void to the extent of plaintiffs' rights
and also held them to be entitled for getting their name mutated and partition of
the land.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and after perusal of the entire record,
this Court does not find any illegality in the judgment & decree passed by the
learned Courts below.
8. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
