[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shabda Pratap Satsang Shabda Pratap ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32898
1 SA-94-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 94 of 2018
SHABDA PRATAP SATSANG SHABDA PRATAP ASHRAM THR.
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N.K. Gupta - Learned Senior Advocate with Shri Shatru Daman
Singh Bhadouriyia - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Anand Vinod Bhardwaj - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been preferred by
the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2017
passed by IX Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.19/2015
affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2014 passed VII Civil Judge
Class - 2, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.176A/2013 whereby both the Courts
below have concurrently dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title
and permanent injunction filed in respect of land Survey No.577 and 578,
total area 1 Bigha 4 Biswa, situated in Village Ahukhana, Tahsil and District
Gwalior.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in fact the suit land
belonged to the then Jamindar Sridhar Ganesh and in the year 1933, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32898
2 SA-94-2018
Jamindar sold the land to the plaintiff by way of registered sale deed dated
25.04.1933 and on that basis, the name of plaintiff was timely mutated in the
revenue records. He submits that because by the time, the sale deed got
destroyed, therefore, same could not be placed on record, however in
pursuance of the sale deed, the name of plaintiff was recorded in the revenue
papers, which is clear from the revenue records of Samwat year 1992 to
2007 (Ex.P3 to Ex.P/12) and even in absence of rebuttal evidence, both the
Courts below have committed an illegality in ignoring the said Khasra
entries merely for want of aforesaid registered sale deed.
3 . Taking this Court to paragraph 17 of the judgment of Trial Court,
learned counsel for the appellant further submits that on wrong assumptions
and for want of proof, Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have
discarded the aforesaid revenue entries, whereas the same being certified
copies issued by the Office of District Collector, ought to have been relied
upon in the light of provisions contained in Section 117 of the M.P. Land
Revenue Code, 1959. He also submits that with a view to remove any
ambiguity, another application has been filed before this Court under Order
41 Rule 27 of CPC annexing the revenue entries showing the ownership of
plaintiff over the suit land, which deserve to be taken on record in the
additional evidence and the plaintiff should be given further opportunity to
prove its case. He also submits that although during the pendency of the suit,
a part of the suit land was allotted by the defendant No.1 to the defendant
No.2, but the remaining land is still in possession of the plaintiff and the
Courts below have committed an illegality in holding that the plaintiff is not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32898
3 SA-94-2018
in possession of the suit property. With these submissions, he prays for
admission of this second appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No.2 support the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and prays for
dismissal of the second appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From paragraph 3 of the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiff has come
with specific case that it purchased the suit property from the then Jamindar
Sridhar Ganesh vide registered sale deed dated 25.04.1933 but the plaintiff
did not place that sale deed on record with a view to justify entry of its name
in the revenue record in the aforesaid Samvat years, which have been
ignored by the Courts below for want of proof of the same by calling the
relevant revenue records and upon consideration of oral and documentary
evidence held that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit
land. At the same time, it is also an admitted fact that during the pendency of
the suit, the State Government has also allotted a part of the suit land to the
defendant No.2, who has been found in possession of part of the suit
property after having raised construction of the building.
7. It is well settled that mere revenue entries are not proof of title and
the same cannot be relied upon to decree the suit in absence of any document
of title. In the present case the plaintiff has come with the specific case that
he is owner of the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed dated
25.04.1933 and there is no justifiable reason available on record, not to
produce the same on record. It is also an undisputed fact on record that no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32898
4 SA-94-2018
application for secondary evidence was filed by the plaintiff in respect of the
aforesaid registered sale deed and no permission was also granted by the
Trial Court or by the First Appellate Court in that regard.
8. It is also well settled that the finding on the point of possession is a
pure finding of fact and is not liable to be interfered with within the limited
scope of second appeal provided under Section 100 of CPC as has been held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal Vs. Nihal Singh
reported in (2001) 8 SCC 584.
9 . In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any
substantial question of law involved in the second appeal, therefore, it fails
and is hereby dismissed.
10. Pending applications, if any, are hereby disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
Rashid
