Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bapu vs Khumsingh on 10 February, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3808
1 SA-1962-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 10 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 1962 of 2019
BAPU
Versus
KHUMSINGH
Appearance:
Shri Vinay Gandhi - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Abhishek Gupta - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellants is heard on the question of admission.
This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been
preferred by the plaintiffs / appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed by the Courts below, whereby their claim for declaration of title,
declaration that defendant does not have any title over the same, for declaration
that the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Revenue Court is null and void and
for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their
possession over the suit land has been dismissed.
02. As per the plaintiffs, they are the recorded Bhumiswamis of the suit
lands. The same were earlier recorded in the name of Badiya, father of plaintiff
No.1 and husband of plaintiff No.2. The defendant never had any right over the
same. About two years ago, defendant has illegally got himself recorded over the
same in the revenue records, which is wholly illegal. The defendant is attempting
to take possession of the suit lands forcibly, hence, the suit.
03. The defence of the defendant is that the suit lands are ancestral lands of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3808
2 SA-1962-2019
the parties. The same were recorded in the name of Chhabla, elder son of Kalu as
per custom, but the lands were joint family property of the parties. Upon death of
Rama, Badiya illegally got himself recorded over the suit lands in the revenue
records. Rama had effected a partition in his lifetime amongst his sons. The
plaintiffs are not the exclusive owners of the suit lands. The defendant has been in
possession of the suit lands under a partition effected in the family 30 years ago.
04. The Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs' claim by holding that
no document has been produced by them to show that the suit lands were
exclusively held by their predecessor Badiya. Earlier, the same were recorded in
the name of Chhabla and Rama. There is no evidence that the suit lands were self-
acquired lands of Badiya.
05. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that the Courts below
have erred in holding that plaintiffs have not proved that they are the sole owners
of the suit lands. From the revenue records, it is evident that Badiya was recorded
over the suit lands exclusively in the revenue records on and from 1961 and after
his death, the plaintiffs have been recorded. In the partition, the lands which fell to
the share of defendant were got mutated by him in name of his son Mangu. The
suit lands are, however, exclusive lands of plaintiffs. The revenue records as have
been exhibited have not been given due effect and consideration. The order passed
by the Revenue Court was illegal, the same having been passed in absence of the
plaintiffs and without affording opportunity of hearing to them.
06. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and have perused the
record.
07. In the plaint the plaintiffs have merely stated that they are the
Bhumiswamis of the suit lands and the same were held by Badiya earlier. No
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3808
3 SA-1962-2019
source of title has been pleaded. It has not even been stated as to when and in what
manner Badiya acquired title over the suit lands. Since the claim was for
declaration of title instituted by the plaintiffs, it was imperative for them to have
pleaded their source of title. Their claim is only on the basis of being recorded
over the suit lands in the revenue records. It is well settled that merely for being
recorded in the revenue records does not confer title upon the land. Since title of
plaintiffs was specifically disputed by the defendant, it was incumbent upon them
to have pleaded the manner in which title was acquired which they have totally
failed to do.
08. Though in his deposition, plaintiff No.1 as PW/1 stated that the suit
lands were earlier charnoi land which were obtained by his father Badiya and were
recorded in his name, but there is no pleading in this regard in the plaint in view
of which the statement cannot be considered. Even otherwise in paragraph No.12,
he admitted that his father was the eldest son and it is for that reason itself that he
was recorded over the suit lands in the revenue records and that he had not taken
any steps in the Tehsil Office for getting his name exclusively recorded. There is
no document to show that the suit lands were earlier charnoi land and were
acquired or obtained by Badiya in any manner from the State Government. It is
hence evident that the very source of acquisition of title by Badiya in respect of the
suit lands has neither been pleaded nor proved.
09. In the earliest revenue document which is available on record, i.e. the
khasra panchshala of the suit lands for the year 1957-58 (Exhibit D/9) Chhabla and
Rama are recorded over the suit lands. Though thereafter the name of Badiya has
been recorded, but no proceedings or order has been produced by the plaintiffs to
demonstrate as to for what reason and in what manner, name of Chhabla and
Rama was removed from over the suit lands and name of Badiya was exclusively
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3808
4 SA-1962-2019
recorded over the same. There is no pleading by the plaintiffs that the parties
formed a joint family which was possessed of numerous lands of which a partition
had been effected in which the suit lands had been allotted to Badiya and
remaining lands had been allotted to other members of the family. In absence of
any such plea or even statement by plaintiffs, it cannot be presumed that the suit
lands were joint family lands of the parties and had fallen to the share of Badiya in
a partition. As stated above, this is not even the plea of plaintiffs whose plea is
that the suit lands are self acquired lands of Badiya hence them having fallen to the
share of Badiya in a partition cannot even be considered.
10. Though it is contented that since plaintiffs and their predecessor have
been recorded over the suit lands in the revenue records for a period of about 50
years, it ought to be presumed that they are the owners of the same, but it is well
settled that mere entries in the revenue records are wholly insufficient by
themselves to confer title in absence of proof of acquisition of title particularly
when the same is denied. At the first instance, Chhabla and Rama were recorded
over the suit lands hence it was imperative for plaintiffs to have shown acquisition
of title thereafter which they have not done. Revenue records are primarily for
fiscal purposes and only for plaintiffs and their predecessor having been recorded
for a period of 50 years, their title cannot be presumed.
11. It is also contended that from defendant's evidence itself, it is evident
that the suit lands which had fallen to the share of defendant in the partition in the
family were got recorded by him in the name of his son Mangusingh but there is
no plea by plaintiffs that a partition had been effected in the family in which the
suit lands had been allotted to Badiya and certain other lands had been allotted to
the defendant which were got recorded by him in name of his son. The statements
of defendant hence do not benefit the plaintiffs in any manner. It is for them to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3808
5 SA-1962-2019
prove their own case.
12. The only document produced by the plaintiffs as regards title is Exhibit
P/1, Kishtabandhi khatoni in which also defendant is recorded along with them.
The other documents are in respect of other lands. The Courts below have rightly
dismissed the claim of plaintiffs holding that they have failed to prove their title to
the suit lands. The judgment and decree passed by them are based upon a correct
appreciation of the evidence on record and application of legal principles
applicable thereto. No illegality or perversity has been pointed out in them. No
substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. Consequently,
affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, the appeal stands
dismissed in limine.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
