Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mst.Terasia & Ors. vs Suryabhan & Ors. on 5 August, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36462
1 SA-1458-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 5 th OF AUGUST, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1458 of 2005
MST.TERASIA & ORS.
Versus
SURYABHAN & ORS.
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Shankar Raizada - Advocate for the appellants.
ORDER
This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
challenging the judgment and decree dated 3/3/2005 passed by 6th
Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rewa in Regular Civil Appeal
No.137-A/2004 affirming the judgment and decree dated 11/10/2002 passed
by First Additional Civil Judge Class-I, Rewa in Civil Suit No.48-A/2000,
whereby both the Courts below have dismissed the appellants/plaintiffs' suit
for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaring the order of
mutation dated 24/10/1989 as null and void.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that originally the suit
property belonged to common ancestor Bharat, who was survived by
Chhaddhari (Chhatradhari), Ramadheer and Raghunandan. He submits that
Raghunandan relinquished his share in the property in favour of Ramadheer's
son-Tatiya, therefore, the original plaintiff-Harvansh Prasad (now dead, by
LRs), who was son of Tatiya, claimed 2/3rd share in the suit property. He
submits that as Tatiya was having 2/3rd share in the suit property, due to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36462
2 SA-1458-2005
relinquishment of share by Raghunandan, therefore, the order of mutation
passed on 24/10/1989 being illegal, ought to have been declared as null and
void as against the rights of plaintiffs and both the Courts below have
committed an illegality in dismissing the suit without taking into
consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter. With these submissions, he
prays for admission of the second appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
4. In the present case, there is no dispute that vide order dated
24/10/1989 (copy of which was not placed on record by the plaintiff though
the order was challenged by way of filing the instant suit), the land was
recorded in the name of the plaintiff's father Tatiya as well as Chhaddhari
(Chhatradhari) through whom the defendants are claiming right in the suit
property and this order, as has been stated by learned counsel for the
appellants, was not challenged before any revenue authority and was
challenged by way of filing the instant suit.
5. In the present case, although the plaintiff or his father Tatiya was
claiming share of Raghunandan on the basis of relinquishment of his share,
but no registered document has been placed on record regarding
relinquishment of share by Raghunandan, which can only be done by way of
registered document. It is also an admitted fact that, no such document was
executed by Raghunandan in favour of plaintiff's father Tatiya.
6. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that in absence of any registered
relinquishment deed, the land was recorded in the name of Tatiya and
Chhaddhari (Chhatradhari) having equal share by way of order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36462
3 SA-1458-2005
24/10/1989, which was not challenged before the superior revenue Court. In
my considered opinion, the plaintiff could challenge the order dated
24/10/1989 before the Civil Court within a period of one year as provided
under Article 100 of Limitation Act, 1963 and not beyond that.
7. In my considered opinion, in the suit filed for declaration of title
and permanent injunction, in absence of any registered relinquishment deed
or challenge to order dated 24/10/1989 within a period of one year, the
Courts below do not appear to have committed any illegality in dismissing
the suit by the impugned judgment and decree.
8. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this
second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Arun*
