Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagannath vs Bhagwati Bai @ Bhagirathi Bai on 5 February, 2024
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 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 848 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
1. JAGANNATH S/O SHRI MOTI SINGH RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, VILLAGE RAMPURA
TAHSIL KHRIKIYA HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ROOP SINGH S/O SHRI MOTI SINGH RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, VILLAGE RAMPURA,
TAHSIL KHIRKIYA DISTT. HARDA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SMT. URMILA BAI W/O DAYARAM RAJPUT, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, SAMRAT COLONY, BHOPAL,
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI IMTAIZ HUSSAIN - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI RAVI
KANT PATEL - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. BHAGWATI BAI @ BHAGIRATHI BAI (DIED)
THROUGH LRS:-
1(A) MAHENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHIVRAM SINGH RAJPUR.
1(B) RAJENDRA SINGH (DELETED)
1(i) SMT. ARUNA RAJPUR, W/O LATE RAJENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
1(ii) GEETIKA, D/O RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 7
YEARS.
1(iii) DEVANSH, S/O RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 5
YEARS.
[1(i) & 1(iii) ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR
NATURAL GUARDIAN & MOTHER ARUNA
RAJPUT]
1(C) POONAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O
SHIVRAM SINGH RAJPUT, R/O SECTION NO.6
H.NO.A/321 NUW HARSUD, CHHANERA, DISTRICT
KHANDWA (M.P)
1(D) SMT. VANDANA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O
LATE SHIVRAM SINGH RAJPUT, W/O GAJRAJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 2/6/2024
6:07:09 PM
2
SINGH, R/O PURANI ITARSI, DISTRICT
HOSHANGABAD (NARMADAPURAM)
1(E) SMT. PUSHPA BAI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
D/O LATE SHIVRAM SINGH RAJPUR, W/O
RAJENDRA SINGH, R/O NYAS COLONY, ITARSI,
DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (NARMADAPURAM)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE COLLECTOR, HARDA DISTT. HARDA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ARVIND SONI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 1 AND SHRI VIJAY
PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by appellants/plaintiffs
challenging judgment and decree dated 24.06.2014 passed by District Judge,
Harda in RCA No.1-A/2012 affirming judgment and decree dated 15.05.2012
passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Harda in civil suit no.273-A/2010 whereby
appellants/plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in
respect of land Khasra nos.36, 133, 171 and 234 total area 32.32 acres, situated
in Village Rampura, Tehsil Khirkiya, District Harda, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that suit land belonged
to Moti Singh who was survived by wife Mathurabai, sons Jagannath Singh and
Roop Singh, daughters Bhagwati and Urmila Bai. He submits that there was an
oral family settlement in the family whereby Mathurabai kept an area 4 acres
with her and remaining area of the lands was given to plaintiffs 1-2 (Jagannath
Singh and Roop Singh). As Bhagwatibai and Urmila Bai relinquished their share
in favour of plaintiffs, hence their names were mutated in the revenue record but
subsequently upon filing appeal by defendant 1-Bhagwati Bai, names of
defendant 1 and Urmila were also mutated. He also submits that Courts below
have not considered aforesaid aspect of the matter and committed illegality in
dismissing the suit. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 1-Bhagwati (now legal
representatives) supports the impugned judgment and decree and prays for
dismissal of second appeal with the submissions that although previously
names of Jagannath Singh and Roop Singh were mutated on the land in
question but lateron, the names of Bhagwatibai and Urmila were also mutated
and all the parties are in separate possession according to their shares.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Undisputedly the land in question belonged to Motisingh and in absence of
any registered document of transfer, was devolved on all the successors i.e.
wife Mathurabai, sons Jagannath and Roopsingh & daughters Bhagwati and
Urmila. It is well settled that mere mutation of name in the revenue record, in
absence of any registered/admissible document of transferring title, does not
give any right to the person whose name is mutated in the revenue record.
6. In the present case, Mathurabai herself had no right to give entire land to
plaintiffs 1-2 (Jagannath and Roopsingh), because all the five legal heirs
succeeded the property of Moti Singh. As such, upon filing appeal by Bhagwati
Bai her name was also mutated in the revenue record. In absence of any
registered/admissible document of relinquishment of rights by defendant 1-
Bhagwati Bai, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs/appellants are exclusive
bhoomiswami and in possession of the land in question.
7. Upon perusal of the entire record, this Court does not find any illegality in
the judgment and decree passed by Courts below whereby appellants/plaintiffs'
suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
8. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 rule 11 CPC.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
