Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sharad Kumar on 2 April, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8469
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
SECOND APPEAL No. 2104 of 2019
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SHARAD KUMAR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Vishwajit Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General for
appellant/State.
Ms. Pranjal Kalantre, learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Reserved on 25.02.2025)
(Pronounced on 02.04.2025)
1. This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by
the defendant/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree
passed by the Courts below whereby the claim of plaintiff for
declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8469
with respect thereto has been decreed.
2. As per the plaintiff, he is the owner of the suit house. His
ancestor Swayamvarlal Murai was its owner and it was recorded in his
name in municipality document dated 21.11.1945. After his death
issueless name of his brother Vishambharlal was mutated in 1951.
Vishambharlal was grandfather of plaintiff and on 27.10.1955 he gifted
the suit house to plaintiff which gift was accepted by his father on his
behalf since he was a minor. The gift deed was registered on
28.02.1956. On that basis plaintiff was mutated in the record of
Municipality of Dewas. Property tax was also determined. The suit
house is not built on Government land. On 18.12.2014 the defendant
issued notice to him and threatened to remove his possession from the
suit house.
3. On such contentions, the plaintiff instituted an action for
declaration of his title to the suit house and for permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession over the
same.
4. The defence of defendant was that Swayamvarlal Murai never
paid any premium/rent to the State Government. No lease was granted
by the State Government of the suit house or land in favour of plaintiff
or Swayamvarlal Murai. Plaintiff is not the owner of the same. He has
not acquired any rights on the basis of entries made in record of
Municipal Corporation. The land on which the suit house is built
belongs to Nazul department which is the owner of the house/land.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8469
Swayamvarlal Murai or Vishambharlal had no right to gift the suit land
in favour of plaintiff.
5. The Courts below have decreed the plaintiff's claim by recording
a finding that he has proved that Swayamvarlal Murai was the erstwhile
owner of the suit house upon whose death the same devolved upon his
brother Vishambharlal, who legally executed gift deed on 27.10.1955
which was registered on 28.02.1956 in favour of plaintiff who has
acquired title thereunder. Plaintiff has been in possession of the suit
house for more than 70 years hence presumption of his title has to be
drawn on that basis. The defendant has totally failed to prove that the
land on which the suit house is constructed is Nazul land.
6. Learned counsel for defendant has submitted that the judgment
and decree passed by the Courts below are illegal and contrary to law.
No document as regards title of himself or his predecessor was
produced by the plaintiff in absence of which the same could not have
been upheld. Since plaintiff was claiming title it was imperative for him
to have produced a clear document of title. The revenue receipts could
not have been taken in aid of proof of title. Only on the basis of
possession title could not have been upheld. The suit land belongs to the
defendant and is Nazul land and was never allotted either to
Swayamvarlal Murai, Vishambharlal or the plaintiff. The evidence
available on record was wholly insufficient for upholding plaintiff's
title. It is hence submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the
Courts below be set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8469
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
defendant/appellant and have perused the record.
8. Ex.P/1 is the record of Municipality, Dewas Senior dated
21.11.1945 in which it is recorded that a pakka house No.17 is situated
on khasra No.236 and Swayamvarlal Murai is recorded as its owner.
Ex.P/2 issued by Municipal Council, Dewas shows house
No.1984/2030 area 1413 recorded in the name of Vishambharlal. Ex.P/3
is the gift deed dated 15.02.1956 executed by Vishambharlal in favour
of plaintiff. The same was accepted by plaintiff's father. Plaintiff was
mutated over the suit house as is evident by Ex.P/4. Tax with respect to
the suit house was assessed by the Municipality as evidenced by Ex.P/5.
The tax assessment register with respect to the suit house is Ex.P/6.
From these documents it is clear that in 1945 the suit house was
recorded in name of Swayamvarlal Murai as its owner and after his
death it was recorded in the name of his brother Vishambharlal, who
executed gift deed in favour of plaintiff. There is hence continuity of
documents to demonstrate title of plaintiff as well as his predecessors.
These documents are of a period of 70 years ago and being records of
the Municipal Corporation, Dewas itself deserve to be relied upon and
from them it is evident that plaintiff has been able to prove his title as
contended by him.
9. Though it was defence of defendant that the land on which the
suit house is built is Nazul land but no document whatsoever in that
regard was produced before the Courts below. There was not a single
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8469
document demonstrating that the suit house is built over Nazul land
belonging either to defendant or Municipality, Dewas.
10. The documents produced by plaintiff are more than 60-70 years
old hence presumption as regards their genuineness has rightly been
drawn by the Courts below as per Section 90 of the Evidence Act. No
rebuttal of the said presumption was made by the defendant. It hence
cannot be said that the Courts below have not correctly relied upon the
documents. The plaintiff and his predecessors have been in possession
of the suit house at least since 1945 as owners. In absence of any
rebuttal evidence such possession would be a presumptive proof of title.
The Courts below have hence correctly upheld plaintiff's title.
11. Though in this appeal an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of
the CPC has been preferred by the defendant for taking additional
documents on record but those documents are also the khasra and other
revenue documents. They are not proof of title and merely on their basis
the documents of Municipality, Dewas as produced by plaintiff cannot
be doubted. From these additional documents also it is not shown that
the suit land is Nazul land. In any case these documents are of a period
much prior to filing of the suit and were always available with the
defendant to their knowledge but were not produced before the Courts
below. The only reason for delay assigned in the application is that the
officer-in-charge of the case did not produce the documents before the
Courts below. Such a weak and flimsy explanation cannot be regarded
to be a sufficient ground for admission of additional documents. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8469
defendant/State Government cannot distance itself from the acts of its
OIC merely by such a casual statement. The additional documents even
if are taken into consideration would not have the effect of disturbing
the findings as recorded by the Courts below.
12. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, the
Courts below have not committed any error in upholding plaintiff's title
to the suit house. The judgment and decree passed by them are based
upon the evidence available on record and application of relevant legal
principles. No illegality or perversity in the same has been shown. No
substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which
is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
