Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Soni vs Lotan Singh on 4 October, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 M.P. No.5518/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 04th OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.5518 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VIJAY SONI S/O LATE SHRI JAGDISH SONI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O CANT NEAR POLICE DIST. SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAKESH KUMAR KESHARWANI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. LOTAN SINGH S/O DAYARAM SONI, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE SAGONI
TEH. MALATHON, DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. GOVIND SINGH S/O LATE SHER SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE SAGONI
TEH. MALATHON DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
.........................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been
filed against order dated 08/06/2023 passed by Additional
Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar in appeal No.818/Appeal/A-
6/2021-22, by which appeal filed by respondents has been allowed and
has also directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for declaration
of their title.
2. It is the case of petitioner that father of petitioner had purchased
the land in dispute by registered sale-deed dated 15/07/1976 by paying
consideration amount and possession of land was also delivered to
father of petitioner. However, father of petitioner committed a mistake
by not getting his name mutated in revenue records. After death of
father of petitioner in the year 2019, petitioner came to know about
registered sale-deed which was executed in the name of his father.
Therefore, he moved an application for mutation of his name on the
basis of registered sale-deed before Tehsildar, Tehsil Malthon, District
Sagar in revenue case No.376/A-6/2021-22. The said application was
rejected by Tehsildar, Tehsil Malthon, District Sagar by order dated
20/01/2021.
3. Accordingly, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 44(1) of
M.P.L.R. Code before SDO Malthon, District Sagar in revenue appeal
No.30/Appeal/2021-22. The said appeal was allowed by holding that
Tehsildar should have directed for mutation of name of petitioner which
was filed on the basis of registered sale-deed. Since registered sale-deed
was not set aside or even no suit was filed by respondents for a deed of
reconveyance, therefore order of Tehsildar Malthon, District Sagar was
set aside and it was directed that name of petitioner be recorded in the
revenue records.
4. Being aggrieved by said order passed by SDO, Malthon, District
Sagar, respondents preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the
impugned order. It was held that SDO has directed for mutation of name
of petitioner on the basis of 43 years old sale-deed which has been
disputed by respondents and therefore, it was observed that parties are
free to get their title declared from Civil Court and the judgment passed
in civil litigation shall be binding on the revenue Authorities.
5. Challenging the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar
Division Sagar, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that after the
order was passed by SDO, Malthon, District Sagar, name of petitioner
was mutated in the revenue records. Respondents have already filed a
suit for declaration that the sale-deed executed in favour of father of
petitioner is null and void as it was executed by way of security of loan.
The said suit is still pending and notices have not been issued so far.
Petitioner has also filed some of the copies of order-sheets of trial Court
to show that notices were not issued.
6. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.
7. The case of petitioner is that in the year 1976 a sale-deed was
executed in favour of his father. However, counsel for petitioner could
not give any explanation as to why father of petitioner did not move an
application for mutation of his name in the revenue records.
Respondents have not admitted the sale-deed but they have disputed the
same by saying that it was executed by way of security of loan.
8. Under these circumstances, nature of document cannot be
adjudicated by the revenue Authorities. Furthermore, respondents have
already approached the Civil Court for declaration of sale-deed as null
and void. Petitioner has filed the order-sheets of the Trial Court starting
from 31/01/2022 i.e. date of institution till 22/11/2022. Approximately
11 months have passed thereafter but for the reasons best known to the
petitioner, he has not filed the order-sheets subsequent to 22/11/2022.
Thus, the contention of petitioner that even notices have not been issued
to petitioner cannot be accepted.
9. In absence of an authoritative document to show the present status
of Civil Suit, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the parties
have already approached the Civil Court and question of title is already
under challenge, therefore Additional Commissioner did not commit
any mistake by directing that the mutation done by Tehsildar shall be
subject to final outcome of civil litigation.
10. Since application for mutation was filed after 43 years of so called
sale-deed and sale-deed has been disputed by respondents by claiming
that it was a sham document executed by way of security of loan, this
Court is of the considered opinion that Additional Commissioner, Sagar
Division Sagar did not commit any mistake by directing the mutation of
names of respondents in revenue records.
11. Parties shall be free to move an application for temporary
injunction in pending Civil Suit and further rights of the parties shall be
decided in accordance with interlocutory orders which may be passed by
the Civil Court or final verdict passed in civil litigation.
12. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Shubhankar
Digitally signed by
SHUBHANKAR MISHRA
Date: 2023.10.05
19:04:08 +05'30'
