Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bherulal vs State Of M.P. on 29 April, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11762
1 SA-855-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 855 of 2020
BHERULAL
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narendra Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
ORDER
1. Learned counsel for appellant is heard on the question of
admission.
2. This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by
the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the
Courts below whereby his claim for declaration of title, permanent injunction
and for restoration of his name in the revenue records has been dismissed.
3. As per the plaintiff, he is the owner of the suit land bearing survey
No.797/342/2 area 0.050 hectare. He had been recorded over the same in the
revenue records as Bhumiswami thereof. The defendants have no right to
alienate the same in favour of any person. However defendant No.1 has
altered the revenue records and has recorded defendant No.2 over the suit
land which is illegal. The defendants have refused to record him over the suit
land despite issuance of notice by him in that regard hence the suit for the
reliefs as aforesaid has been instituted by him.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11762
2 SA-855-2020
4. The claim was contested by the defendants and has been
dismissed by the Courts below by recording a finding to the effect that
plaintiff has failed to prove his title to the suit land. A road is constructed
over the suit land and that plaintiff has not challenged recording of defendant
No.2 over the suit land.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
plaintiff and have perused the record.
6. In support of his contentions the plaintiff has produced only the
revenue records i.e. the khasra panchshala and the kishtbandi khatoni. It is
well settled that the revenue records are only for fiscal purposes and are by
themselves not sufficient to confer title in the land. No document has been
produced by the plaintiff which can be regarded to be a document of title.
Though from the revenue records it appears that plaintiff was recorded over
the suit land upto the year 1997-98 but thereafter he has not been so
recorded. In the year 2003, by order passed in Namantaran Panji defendant
No.2 was recorded over the same. Ever since then he has been so recorded.
Said recording has not been challenged by the plaintiff.
7. While there is a presumption as regards the entries made in the
revenue records as per Section 117 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 but
that presumption is also only to the effect that the said entries made are
correct. However that presumption cannot be stretched to hold that if a
person is recorded in the revenue records, on that basis itself, he ought to be
declared as the owner. For the purpose of proving title, some document
which could be said to be its conclusive proof is required to be produced but
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11762
3 SA-855-2020
in the present case except the revenue records no document has been filed by
the plaintiff for demonstrating his title. Even the record of rights which are
maintained by the revenue department and which under the provisions of the
Code, 1959 are considered to be proof of title have not been produced.
Merely on the basis of khasra panchshala and kishtbandi khatoni the title of
plaintiff cannot be upheld.
8. Moreover from the documents filed by the plaintiff himself it is
seen that over the entire suit land a road has been constructed since a long
time and even during the time when plaintiff was recorded over the same.
This entry has continued. Even the plaintiff in his cross-examination has
admitted that over the land a road has been constructed which has been so
constructed about 17-18 years ago. It does not appear that plaintiff has ever
taken any objection to the construction of the said road which construction
has been done by the Gram Panchayat. He has also never challenged the
order passed in the Namantaran Panji recording defendant No.2 in the year
2003 itself vide order dated 25.07.2003 (Ex.P/7) and has instead instituted
the civil suit only in the year 2014.
9. The courts below have taken into consideration the entire oral as
well as the documentary evidence available on record and have negatived
plaintiff's title to the suit land holding that from the evidence produced by
him the same has not been proved. In such circumstances the judgment relied
upon by the learned counsel for plaintiff does not help him in any manner.
10. No illegality or perversity has been pointed out in the judgment
and decree passed by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11762
4 SA-855-2020
for determination in this appeal. Hence affirming the judgment and decree
passed by the Courts below the appeal stands dismissed in limine.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
