Bittu Singh vs Sherbahadur Singh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3894 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bittu Singh vs Sherbahadur Singh on 9 February, 2024

                                  1
 IN     THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
                  ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                   SECOND APPEAL No. 38 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
1-A.   BITTU SINGH W/O LATE CHHOTELAL SINGH,
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. VILL. NAUDIYA TEH
       GOPADBANAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

B.     SHAMSHER   BAHADUR    SINGH   S/O LATE
       CHHOTELAL SINGH,, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
       VILLAGE   NAUDIYA,TEHSIL    GOPADBANAS
       (MADHYA PRADESH)

C.     UPENDRA SINGH S/O LATE CHHOTELAL SINGH,
       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, VILLAGE NAUDIYA,
       TEHSIL GOPADBANAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

D.     SEELDHAWAJ SINGH S/O LATE CHHOTELAL
       SINGH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, VILLAGE
       NAUDIYA,TEHSIL GOPADBANAS   (MADHYA
       PRADESH)

E.     YUVRAJ SINGH S/O LATE CHHOTELAL SINGH,
       AGED     ABOUT     28    YEARS, VILLAGE
       NAUDIYA,TEHSIL  GOPADBANAS    (MADHYA
       PRADESH)

2.     LAXMAN SINGH S/O LATE CHHOTELAL SINGH,
       AGED   ABOUT   45  YEARS,  R/O VILLAGE
       NAUDIYA,TEHSIL  GOPADBANAS    (MADHYA
       PRADESH)

                                                     .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI A.K. JAIN - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.     SHERBAHADUR SINGH S/O JAGDEO SINGH
       CHAUHAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
       AGRICULTURIST R/O. VILL. NAUDIYA TEH
       GOPADBANAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
                            2
2.    RAJENDRA BAHADUR SINGH S/O JAGDEO SINGH,
      AGED    ABOUT   65   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      AGRICULTURIST  VILLAGE    NAUDIYA,TEHSIL
      GOPADBANAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    SUKURI SINGH D/O JAGDEO SINGH, AGED ABOUT
      57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE
      NAUDIYA,TEHSIL    GOPADBANAS     (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

4.    SATISH NEERAJ NAIB TEHSILDAR GIRDH 2
      TEHSIL GOPADBANAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    VEERENDRA SINGH S/O CHHOTELAL SINGH R/O
      NAUDIYA TEHSIL GOPADBANAS, DISTRICT SIDHI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.    LALLI SINGH W/O RAJAR CHAN, AGED ABOUT 32
      YEAR S, DEORI KATHA R/O TEHSIL MAJHAULI
      DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.    FUTWA SINGH W/O DINESH SINGH, AGED ABOUT
      41 YEARS, R/O TILKHAN TEHSIL SIRMOUR
      DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

8.    SITA SINGH W/O AYUDHYA SINGH, AGED ABOUT
      48 YEARS, D/O CHHOTELAL SINGH R/O DIYADOL
      TEHSIL MAJHAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

9.    BITTI W/O SUKHENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 35
      YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BOOND DISTRICT SATNA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(NONE )

      This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                 JUDGMENT

Heard on the question of admission.

2. This Second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "defendant No. 1-B to 1- F and defendant No.2) against the respondents No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred

to as "plaintiff") and remaining respondents (hereinafter referred to as remaining defendant) being aggrieved the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.10.2021 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sidhi in RCA No. 10/2016 confirming the Judgment and decree dated 17.11.2015 passed by 4th Civil Judge, Class - II, Sidhi in Civil Suit No. 124A/2014 in respect of land survey No. 469 having a area of 1.42 acres situated at village Naudhiya, Tehsil Gopadbanas District Sidhi (hereinafter referred to as "suit land").

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the appellants that the respondents themselves admitted that in view of the order passed by the Tehsildar, correction in mutation entry was made and possession of late Chhotelal predecessor in title of appellants was recorded after getting a report from R.I. and appellants are in possession of the suit land. Revenue report also shows that boundary of disputed land bearing Khasra No.469 and boundary of the appellants bearing survey No. 470 are joined together. The finding of Tehsildar was not challenged by respondents and it attains finality. It is further submitted by the learned counsel of the appellants that parties led their evidence on the basis of their pleadings and to prove the possession over the suit land the defendant submitted their evidence. The plaintiffs did not file any document on record to show that their predecessor-in-title acquired the suit land through any document. Plaintiffs did not file any document on record to show as to

from who they acquired title over the suit land. Appellants were in possession of the suit land right from the beginning. It is also submitted by the learned counsel of the appellant that their application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. for taking additional document on record was erroneously rejected by the first appellate court.

4. Perusal of the record shows that the suit land survey no. 469 admeasuring

area 1.42 acre (earlier survey no.678/2) is the land in dispute, revenue record in the form of bhu-adhikar rin pustika and khasra entries have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent and it shows that since beginning the suit land is in possession of the plaintiffs and their ancestors Jagdev Singh, Baldeo Singh and Shambu Singh and thereafter the suit land has been received by the plaintiff. There is a bandobasti khatoni entry in form of Exhibit D-1 which is related to samvat 1991-92. It shows that the suit land was entered in the name of Chhote Singh who was the predecessor of defendant/appellant but except this document, no document have been filed on behalf of the defendant to show that the ownership or possession over suit land was entered in the revenue record in the name of Chhote Singh and thereafter in the name of defendant.

5. Here it is pertinent to mention that defendant Shamsher Singh (DW-1) himself has made important admissions in his statement. defendant Shamsher Singh in his cross-examination admits categorically that the suit land is the ownership of Jagdev Singh, Shambu Singh and Baldeo Singh. Admission in para 20, 22 & 29 are important and reproduced as under:-

20 ;g dguk lgh gS fd oknxzLr Hkwfe Lo- txnso flag] 'kaaHkw flag vkSj cYnso flag ds iV~Vs dh Hkwfe gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd bl Hkwfe esa iV~Vsnkj 'kaHkw flag] txnso flag o cYnso flag dk muds thou dky esa dCtk FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd okn xzLr Hkwfe igys 'kaHkw flag ds iVVs esa Fkh] fQj muds fu/ku ds ckn muds HkkbZ txnso flag vkSj cYnso flag ds iV~Vs esa jgh gSA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd txnso flag ds fu/ku ds ckn muds mRrjkf/kdkjh oknhx.k vkSj HkkbZ cYnso flag ds iV~Vs dh gks xbZA ;g dguk lgh gS fd fn0 29@09@99 dks oknxzLr Hkwfe oknhx.kksa ds uke ukekafdr gksdj muds iV~Vs dh Hkwfe gks xbZ gSA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd 'ksj cgknqj vkSj jktsUnz cgknqj] 'ke'ksj cgknqj flag ds chp gq, caVokjk ls fnukad 16@04@2012 ls cknxzLr Hkwfe 'ksj cgknqj flag ds iV~Vs dCts dh Hkwfe gks xbZ ;k ughaaA 22 - ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjs firk dk oknxzLr Hkwfe ij dHkh dCtk ugha jgkA ;g dguk Hkh xyr gS fd cknxzLr Hkwfe ij dCtk u gksus ij Hkh esjs firk us rglhy U;k;ky; esa [kljk lq/kkj dk >wBk vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd rglhynkj }kjk fcuk fdlh lE;d~ tkap ds fnukad 31@3@2001 dks oknxzLr Hkwfe ds [kljk esa esjs

firk ds vf/kiR; ds izfof"V dk vkns'k fn;k FkkA eSa ;g ugha crk ldrk fd [kljk lq/kkj ds bl izdj.k esa rglhynkj }kjk oknxzLr Hkwfe ds HkkSfrd fujh{k.k ds fy, dksbZ vkns'k fn;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha Lor% dgk fd fujh{k.k ds fy, iVokjh vkSj jktLo fujh{kd x;s FksA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd [kljk lq/kkj ds bl vkns'k ds fo:) oknhx.kksa us dksbZ vihy izLrqr dj j[kh gS ;k ughaA ;g ckr lgh gS fd oknxzLr Hkwfe ds [kljk esa fn- 31@03@2001 ds iwoZ esjs firk ;k ckck ds vkf/kiR; dh izfof"V ugha gSA 29 - ;g dguk xyr gS fd o"kZ 1925 ls ysdj nkok fnukad rd oknxzLr Hkwfe esa dHkh Hkh u rks esjs iwotksaZ dk iV~Vk o dCtk jgk gS vkSj u gh vkt gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd oknxzLr Hkwfe dk iV~Vk esjs iwoZt /kuqd/kkjh flag] eq.Mw flag vkSj NksVsyky flag dk dHkh ugha jgk gSA

6. So far as the possession over the suit land is concerned, in this behalf the learned counsel of appellant relied on the document Ex. P-9 & P-10which is the order of Tehsildar dated 16.08.1996 and order of Naib Tehsildar dated 31.03.2001 both the documents contained the fact that the revenue- inspector has submitted his report showing that the disputed land is in the possession of Chote Singh but no report of revenue officer has been filed in this behalf. The report of revenue officer has been filed by the appellants alongwith application under order 41 rule 27 before first appellate court but first appellate court after due consideration dismissed that application on the ground that the appellants didn't mention any reason how this document is relevant and why this document couldn't be filed before the trial court during the trial because that document related to date 25.01.1996 and that could conveniently be filed before the trial court and got exhibited in the evidence. The reasons assigned by the first appellate court while rejecting this application are well grounded and does not warrant any interference of this court.

7. So far as the document Ex. P-9 & P-10 is concerned, that bears the observation regarding revenue inspectors report dated 25.01.1996 but the

possession on the relevant suit date is important and in this regard if he travel through the testimony of the witnesses, it is found that the witness of defendant Bhaiyalal (DW-3) himself in para 6 of the cross-examination admitted that in 1952-53 there was possession of Shambu Singh over the suit land recorded in the khatoni. In para 8 of the statement it is also admitted by this witness categorically that after the death of Baldev Singh the disputed land was remained in the possession of the plaintiff. This witness categorically admits that the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the said report of the revenue inspector is not believable vis a vis the testimony of defendant witness.

8. It is also well settled law that stray entries in khasra or khatoni didn't render any right or title in suit land and no right and title can be claimed on the basis of stray entries in khasra or khatoni. Therefore, Ex.D-1 is not believable, vis a vis other documents on record. On the contrary the plaintiff has filed revenue entries that shows the continuous ownership and possession of the

plaintiff and their predecessor over the suit land.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the appellants that plaintiffs have not filed any document or patta which shows the ownership of their predecessor on the suit land. But since there is a clear cut admission by the defendant witnesses themselves therefore no such patta was necessary. The admissions of defendants are further corroborated by the revenue entries which have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, patta or other document of ownership was not required at all in this case.

10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, no perverse finding was given neither by the trial Court nor by the first appellate Court and both the Courts

did not commit any illegality. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this case. Learned Courts below neither ignored any material fact nor considered any inadmissible evidence and, thus, the concurrent findings of the Courts below are not liable to be interfered with.

11. In the result, the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.10.2021 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sidhi in RCA No. 10/2016 and the Judgment and decree dated 17.11.2015 passed by 4th Civil Judge, Class - II, Sidhi in Civil Suit No. 124A/2014 are hereby affirmed.

12. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE Digitally L.R.signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2024.03.07 19:22:56 +05'30'