Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tejbai vs Vijay Singh on 21 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 21st OF MAY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 1364 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
TEJBAL S/O GIRDHARILAL, AGED ABOUT 75
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
LABOUR R/O GIRDHARI MARG
RAGHOGARH GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI ABHISEHK SINGH BHADAURIA- ADVOCATE)
AND
VIJAY SINGH S/O PREMNARAYAN, AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
1. AGRICULTURIST LABOUR R/O GIRDHARI
MARG RAGHOGARH GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
AJEET SINGH S/O PREMNARAYAN, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2.
FARMING, LABOUR GIRDHARI MARG ,
RAGHOGARH GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
KRISHNA BAI D/O PREMNARAYAN W/O
SURESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE GANGA DEVI
NAGAR, INFRONT OF PS NEAR BY PASS
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
GAYATRI BAI D/O PREMNARAYAN W/O
MAHENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42
4. YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
SARSWATI SCHOOL, SADA COLONY
RADHOGARH GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VILAS TIKHE -ADVOCATE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Vivek Rusia
passed the following:
ORDER
The present appeal has been filed under Section 2 (1) of Madhya
Nyayalay (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005
challenging the order dated 11.07.2023 passed in M.P.No.3640/2021
whereby learned single Judge has set-aside the order dated 03.01.2017
passed by SDO-Raghogarh, Guna by directing to consider and decide
the application on the issue of limitation.
2. In this case, the dispute is only in respect of land bearing Survey
No.203 admeasuring area .167 hectare, of village -Pargana Raghogarh.
After the order passed by this Court on 04.01.1997 in
S.A.No.200/1997, the appellant filed an application under Section 115
and 116 of MPLRC seeking recording of his name on 1/2 share of land
bearing Survey No.203 admeasuring area .167 hectare as co-owner.
On 09.07.2012, the aforesaid application was opposed by respondents
and thereafter, vide dated 29.05.2013, the Tehsildar has dismissed the
application as time barred. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an
appeal before the SDO in which vide order dated 03.01.2012, the
learned SDO remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar, Raghogarh.
Thereafter, respondents approached the Additional Commissioner by
way of second appeal. Vide order dated 03.09.2021, the second appeal
was dismissed and thereafter, Miscellaneous Petition was preferred
before the Single Bench of this Court.
3. Vide order dated 11.07.2023, writ court held that the SDO has
wrongly entertained the appeal on merits without deciding the issue of
limitation. Hence, the writ Court set-aside the order of SDO and
remanded back with direction to decide the issue of limitation.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the
record.
5. That, the appellant and Late Premnarayan were real brothers.
Their father Girdharilal, after the death, left other immovable
properties also but the appellant has filed an application claiming 1/2
share only in respect of bearing Survey No.203 admeasuring area .167
hectare. For other land second appeal is also pending before this Court.
Therefore, if the name of appellant is liable to be recorded jointly in
Survey No.203 then name of respondents are also liable to be recorded
jointly with the appellant in respect of other land. Therefore, the
proper course would be to file an application for partition before the
Tehsildar and Tehsildar shall decide the same on the basis of Fard
Batwara between the parties. At present application for recording the
name of appellant is only in respect of one survey number and
therefore, other properties left by Shri Girdharilal are ought to be
partitioned by meets and bounds between these two legal heirs. In such
premises learned counsel submit that the application of mutation has
no merit and rightly decided by Tehsildar.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that other land
belonging to father of the appellant is under litigation hence same
cannot be included in the application for partition.
7. At present name of the respondents are recorded as exclusive
owner of the land Survey No.203 admeasuring area .167 hectare on the
basis of will of Late Girdharilal. In civil suite, the said will had been
discarded by the civil Court and said decree has been affirmed by the
civil Court in S.A.No.200/1997. Therefore, the name of the appellant
is liable to be recorded as co-owner along with names of respondents.
If the respondents have any grievance about their share/title in respect
of other joint property left by the Late Girdharilal, they may challenge
the same by way of appropriate legal proceeding. In view of the
judgment dated 04.01.2006 passed in S.A.No.200/1997, the name of
appellant is also liable to be recorded as co-owner along with
respondents. The parties shall be free to go for partition by way of civil
suit or revenue proceedings in respect of all the properties of Late
Girdharilal.
8. In view of the above, impugned order Annexure P-1 is set aside.
Tehesildar Raghogarh is directed to mutate the name of appellant in
the revenue record.
9. Writ appeal is allowed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ashish*
ASHISH
CHAURASIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
CHAUR
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=bf81a9adb1da24e4bc7b51
95154c3d4de08c6bb9303e52e2e7e7
28d9bac85bd3, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
ASIA
serialNumber=A926F3CBF979ECA6A
4C477577EEDBA3AB4F94593A930B9
8DAE1B0AD16F90B5FD, cn=ASHISH
CHAURASIA
Date: 2024.05.27 23:53:44 -07'00'
