Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sabla vs Deceased Vesta Through Lrs. Deceased ... on 22 February, 2024
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 22nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1145 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SABLA S/O BUCHA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS KHADKUI, TEH. RANAPUR, DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
(MS. SONALI GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)
AND
DECEASED VESTA THROUGH LRS. DECEASED AJAYSINGH
THROUGH LRS. BUDDHI S/O AJAYSINGH, AGED ABOUT 27
1.
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST DHAMNI KATARA,
TEH. RANAPUR, DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
DECEASED VESTA THROUGH LRS.GAMBHIR S/O VESTA,
2. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, DHAMANI KATARA, TEHSIL
RANAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
DECEASED ALAMSINGH THROUGH LRS DEVLA S/O
3. ALAMSINGH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, DHAMNI KATARA,
TEH. RANAPUR, DISTT. JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
DECEASED ALAMSINGH THROUGH LRS RATANSINGH S/O
4. ALAMSINGH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, DHAMANI KATARA,
TEHSIL RANAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
DECEASED REMA THROUGH LRS SMT. DHUNDHI W/O REMA,
5. AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, DHAMANI KATARA, TEHSIL
RANAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
DECEASED REMA THROUGH LRS SMT. DEVKA D/O REMA,
6. AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, DHAMANI KATARA, TEHSIL
RANAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
DILIP S/O ALAMSINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DHAMANI
7.
KATARA, TEHSIL RANAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SMT. NAHALI W/O ALAMSINGH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
2
OCCUPATION: KHETI DHAMANI KATARA, TEHSIL RANAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH THE
9.
COLLECTOR, DISTRICT- JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed
the following:-
ORDER
Appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Section
100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and
decree dated 29.01.2019 passed by District and Sessions Judge,
District Jhabua (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal No.56-A of 2017
arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2017 passed
in Civil Suit No.15-A of 2016 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II,
District Jhabua (MP).
(2) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed
the civil suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession
against the respondents/defendants in relation to the agricultural
land bearing survey nos.464, 465, 466, 468, 469, 471, 478 and
481 total area 7.2 hectares of Gram Dhamni, Tehsil - Ranapur,
District - Jhabua (MP) by stating Bucha and Bhura S/o Moti are
the owners of suit land before 25 years ago and on account of
fire broke out in their house, Bucha and Bhura resided in village
Khadkui after giving their land to Ratansingh to use them to run
a factory. Thereafter the appellant came there for seeking
possession of the suit land but the respondents had denied to
give the same. Thereafter the plaintiffs obtained the revenue
records by having knowledge that the respondents have mutated
their name in the revenue records without consent of the
ancestors of the plaintiffs, so plaintiffs have filed the suit for
declaration of title and seeking possession.
(3) The respondents/defendants have filed their reply before
the trial court and has pleaded that the suit land was the
ancestral property and they are continuously in possession of the
suit land and after the death of their ancestors, their names were
mutated in the revenue records and hence prays for dismissing
the civil suit.
(4) The trial court has framed the issue and on the basis of
pleadings of both the parties and after hearing counsel for both
the parties has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff.
(5) Being aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree
passed by the trial court, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred the
appeal before the first appellate court and the first appellate
court has dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court.
(6) Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as first
appellate court are illegal and are not based on proper
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record. The
trial court as well as first appellate court have committed grave
error while dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff.
The findings of trial court and first appellate court are perverse
which is against the evidence available on record. Hence, prays
for setting aside of the order passed by trial court and first
appellate court.
(7) I have heard counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and have
perused the records with due care.
(8) From perusal of the record of trial court, it appears that the
appellant/defendant has filed the civil suit for declaration of title
and therefore the burden of proof lies on the appellant that the
suit land belongs to him. On perusal of record it was also found
that the suit land was the ancestral property of
respondents/plaintiffs and on perusal of document Ex.P/2 that
Jhendu Devla S/o Alam Singh was recorded in the revenue
record and the same situation arises in Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4, the
name of Devla, Ratansingh, Newa, Dilip Singh and Nahli was
recorded as owners of the suit land.
(9) Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that the
respondents/defendants had hatched the conspiracy with the
revenue officers to mutate their names in the revenue records
but was unable to prove this allegation that he dare to call the
records to prove the fact that defendants hatched conspiracy
with the revenue officers. It is the duty of the appellant/plaintiff
to prove that the mutation has been done in favour of the
defendants and has been done wrongly by revenue officer but he
has not produced any revenue document to prove the same.
(10) The plaintiffs accepted in their evidence that defendant are
in possession of the suit land since 55 years ago and plaintiffs
have never tried to seek any legal proceedings for recovery of
possession or declaring of their title. So on the basis of oral and
documentary evidence available on record the
appellant/defendant has failed to prove the title over the suit
land.
(11) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned judgments passed by trial
court and first appellate court are well reasoned and based upon
the due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence
available on record. The findings recorded by trial court and first
appellate court are concurrent findings of facts. The
appellant/plaintiff has failed to show that how the findings of
facts recorded by trial court and first appellate court are illegal,
perverse and based on no evidence. Thus, no substantial
question of law arises for consideration in the present second
appeal.
(12) Accordingly, present second appeal filed by the
appellant/plaintiff sans merit and is hereby dismissed in
aforesaid terms.
(13) Certified copy, as per Rules.
(HIRDESH)
Arun/- JUDGE
ARUN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
2.5.4.20=d5b56e3de75e7828ced1a96bc4f018
04c3ea1f0a5497e4019e41c0a82cbabbf0,
NAIR
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=192F2423E128DC1CC004DD8F
F22B3F2FFC3D1EF75981FCBEF3B2B76823F27
0F7, cn=ARUN NAIR
Date: 2024.02.26 20:01:12 +05'30'
