Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal vs Smt. Manorama on 30 July, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 24696 of 2025
BABULAL AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. MANORAMA AND OTHERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri
Anand Vinod Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Y.P.S.
Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 07/07/2025
Delivered on : 30/07/2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind
Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by Board of
Revenue, Gwalior, in revision No.3965/18/Datia/Bhu.Ra., whereby
while allowing the revision the order dated 07.06.2018 passed by
Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division in Appeal No.699/2016-17
was reversed and it was directed that the names of all the sisters be
mutated in the revenue records.
2. Short facts of the case are that one Laxminarayan s/o Ramlal was
the owner/Bhumiswami of the land bearing survey No.248, 310, 311,
312 and 316 total admeasuring 4.889 hectare situated at village Uchad
Tehsil Seondha District Datia. The fact of the ownership of late
Laxminarayan was ascertained in a civil suit No.110-A/2006 dated
17.05.2007 by First Civil Judge, Class-I, Datia. Said Laxminarayan
died in the year 1986 and he was survived by his wife Janki Devi, one
son Babulal and four daughters, namely, Manorama, Uma Devi,
Mahadevi and late Vimla Devi.
3. After the death of Laxminarayan, the names of his legal
representatives were mutated in the records vide Namantran Panji
No.7 on 03.074.1987. Against the said Namantran Panji, son of the
petitioner No.1 preferred an appeal alleging that on 19.01.1986 a Will
has been executed by late Laxminarayan in his favour. Vide order dated
28.05.1999 the Sub Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and remitted
the matter back to the Tehsildar for deciding it afresh after giving
opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
4. After remand, the matter was again heard by Tehsildar and vide
order dated 19.01.1986 in case No.06/2001-02/A-6 the name of Dinesh
Kumar was mutated in revenue records. On 25.10.2010 said Dinesh s/o
Babulal, petitioner No.1 expired. The order passed by Tehsildar dated
09.05.2005 then was challenged by present respondent No.1 in appeal
before Sub Divisional Officer. The said appeal was allowed vide order
dated 25.06.2016 and names of Legal representatives of late
Laxminarayan were directed to be mutated in the revenue records,
against which present petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sub
Divisional Officer, which was allowed vide order dated 07.06.2019 and
it was directed that since petitioner No.2 was the only legal
representative of late Dinesh being class-I heir, she is entitled for
getting her name mutated in the revenue records. Challenging the said
order the present respondents No.1,2 and 3 preferred a revision before
the Board of Revenue. Learned Board of Revenue while allowing the
revision and setting aside the order passed by the Additional
Commissioner, directed again to mutate the names of all the legal
representatives of late Laxminarayan including his daughters.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid, present petition has been filed.
ARGUMENTS
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had argued that in civil suit
No.110A/2006 the fact of ownership of the father of petitioner No.1
was established and it was also held that on the basis of Will Dinesh
had acquired right and title in the property, therefore, when a competent
Court of civil jurisdiction has found the Will to be proved then there
was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to have gone into the aspect
of the legal heirship as per the Hindu Succession Act rather should
have maintained the entries in the revenue records in favour of Dinesh
made on the basis of the Will.
6. Learned senior Counsel has also argued that respondent No.3 has
also preferred a civil suit No.1A/2009 for declaration and injunction
but the same was dismissed in non-compliance of the orders of the
Court, thus, when the right and title of the respondents was already
denied by competent civil Court, their names in the revenue records
could not have been mutated.
7. Learned Senior Counsel while placing reliance in the matter of
Murari and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2020 (4) MPLJ 139; has
argued that once the Will was disputed before Civil Court and has been
found to be genuine then as per the provision of Section 6 of Hindu
Succession Act the name of beneficiaries of the Will was to be mutated,
which was rightly done by the Tehsildar and the Additional
Commissioner but the aforesaid provisions was misconstrued by the
Board of Revenue, thus, the order deserves to be quashed.
8. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel also placed reliance
in the matter of Anand Chaudhri Vs. State of M.P. and others passed
in writ petition No.3499/2022 dated 14.02.2025 by full Bench of this
Court.
9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
had submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Board of
Revenue in allowing the revision, as admittedly no rights were
crystalized of son of the petitioner No.1 in the civil suit No.11A/2006,
which was a suit by one Ayodhya Prasad against petitioner No.1 and
his son Dinesh Kumar on the basis of adverse possession. It was further
submitted that in the aforesaid suit nowhere the Will was questioned or
was proved and in fact there was no occasion for the trial Court to have
gone into the said aspect as it could not have been raised by the
plaintiff therein, thus, the very contention of petitioners that the Will
was proved in the civil suit is baseless.
10. Learned Senior counsel also while referring to the judgment of
the full Bench in the matter of Anand Chaudhary (supra) had argued
that when the Will was disputed then the party who is claiming right on
the basis of said Will, is required to get his/her rights crystalized before
a civil Court and on the basis of a disputed Will Tehsildar has no right
to mutate name of beneficiaries of the Will. It was, thus, submitted that
the present petition has no sum and substance and accordingly, it be
dismissed.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. A detailed order has been passed by the Board of Revenue and
while referring to judgment of Murari and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. &
Ors. (supra) on which the petitioner has placed reliance has observed
that when there is a dispute with regard to a Will and party is claiming
title on the basis of said Will, then the said subject matter would be that
of a civil Court and can only be decided by the Civil Court with the
help of evidence produced before it and by examining the witnesses.
The aforesaid preposition appears to be correct preposition and the
same analogy had been laid down by the full Bench of this Court in the
matter of Anand Chaoudhary (Supra).
13. Once it is found that a party cannot get his name mutated in the
revenue records on the basis of a disputed Will and he had to first get
his rights crystalized from a Civil Court before claiming any rights, the
question of mutation of all the legal representatives of the deceased in
whose name the land actually belonged doesn't arise rather the natural
corollary would be that names of all the legal representatives shall be
recorded in the revenue papers. Thus, this Court finds that no illegality
has been committed by the Board of Revenue in allowing the revision
and directing for mutation of all the legal representative of late
Laxminarayan in the Revenue Records.
14. With the aforesaid, the present petition be dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHASHANK
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
SHASH
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec09e
066bc6b58cb947c1474b7dc349a1cf27eaa
2ce, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
ANK
serialNumber=E60A9BBFC39E0EE500EAA
DE1E0B3B8565CB3A7DC9F5CD048197DF
0FF3149AE58, cn=NEETU SHASHANK
Date: 2025.07.30 18:56:16 +05'30'
