Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nagar Palika Parishad Thr vs Prathvi Giri on 30 July, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15982
1 SA-16-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 30th OF JULY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 16 of 2017
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD THR
Versus
PRATHVI GIRI
Appearance:
Mr. Anil Sharma - Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent No. 1 on
caveat.
JUDGMENT
This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against
judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 passed by Second Additional District
Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 56-A/2016, by
which judgment and decree dated 25.02.2015 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I,
Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 101-A/2014 was set aside
and suit filed by plaintiff/respondent was decreed.
2. Appellant is defendant who has lost his case from the Appellate
Court.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that
respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction. It was his case that he had purchased the land in dispute by
registered sale deed dated 08.09.1992 from its vendor Chhotelal, and got the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15982
2 SA-16-2017
possession thereof. On 07.03.2013, he made an application for mutation of
his name on the basis of sale deed dated 08.09.1992. Defendant/Municipal
Council, Ganj Basoda sent a letter dated 13.12.2013, thereby informing the
plaintiff that land in dispute belongs to the ownership of defendant,
therefore, his application has been rejected by order dated 03.10.2013. After
receiving the aforesaid information, when plaintiff/respondent obtained the
documents, then he came to know that name of defendant has been recorded
in the revenue records. It is his case that no information was ever given to
plaintiff before mutation of name of defendant. Thus, suit was filed for
declaration of title and permanent injunction.
4. Defendant filed its written statement. It was admitted that plaintiff
had purchased the property by registered sale deed. However, other
averments with regard to possession was denied. It was stated that name of
Municipal Council is recorded in the revenue records of the Municipal
Council.
5. Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed
the suit on the ground that property in dispute was already acquired by
Municipal Council, Ganj Basoda.
6. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court,
plaintiff/respondent preferred an appeal which has been allowed by
impugned judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016 passed by Second
Additional District Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha in Civil Appeal
No.56-A/2016, and civil suit filed by plaintiff has been decreed.
7. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15982
3 SA-16-2017
it is submitted by counsel for appellant that Appellate Court has failed to see
that disputed property was acquired by the Municipal Council and
compensation amount was paid to Chhotelal. Therefore, plaintiff had no right
or title in the property in dispute, and property had already vested in
Municipal Council and proposed following substantial questions of law:-
"(i) Whether, learned appellate court is justified in passing
the impugned judgment and decree that learned trial court in
discussion of issue no. 2 clearly mentioned that plaintiff is not in
possession of disputed plot?
(ii) Whether, plaintiff stated in the plaint that he has
purchased the plot on 8.8.1992 and application for mutation is
submitted on 7.3.2013 which is sufficient to show that plaintiff
with the collusion of seller this situation is created which is not
permissible under the law?
(iii) Whether learned trial court rightly held that plaintiff has
failed to establish his suit?"
8. Heard learned counsel for appellant.
9. This is a case where it appears that Municipal Council was trying
very hard to give away the property to plaintiff. The written statement which
has been filed by the Municipal Council shows that Municipal Council was
not ready to put forward all the facts and circumstances of the case. The
registered sale deed, in favour of plaintiff, was admitted, but merely
possession was denied. It was nowhere pleaded in the written statement that
property in dispute was ever acquired by the Municipal Council, and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15982
4 SA-16-2017
compensation of the same was ever paid to Chhotelal, who was the original
owner of property in dispute.
10. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1, and Anantram as PW-2,
whereas defendant/appellant has examined Harishankar Rawat as DW-1.
Harishankar Rawat, in his affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, has
stated that he is working as Revenue Inspector. Disputed property, i.e., Araji
No. 272, area 0.345 hectare, was acquired by Nagar Palika, Ganj Basoda, and
name of Nagar Palika was mutated. Plaintiff had filed an application for his
mutation, but since Nagar Palika was already recorded as owner, therefore,
application was rejected. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that
name of Nagar Palika was mutated in the revenue records on 29.03.1994,
and it was further stated that Municipal Council had purchased the property
from Chhotelal. Thereafter, this witness corrected himself and stated that
property was acquired. Nothing was stated by this witness as to whether any
compensation amount was paid to Chhotelal or not. Surprisingly, even the
notifications issued under Sections 4, 6, and 11 of the Land Acquisition Act
have also not been placed on record. Even documents pertaining to payment
of compensation to Chhotelal were also not placed on record.
11. As already pointed out, in the written statement, there is no
pleading that property was ever acquired by the Municipal Council. It is well
established principle of law that any evidence in absence of pleading has no
legal value.
12. Furthermore, no application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, thereby
making an attempt to place the copy of notifications issued under Sections 4,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15982
5 SA-16-2017
6, and 11 of Land Acquisition Act on record, has been filed even before this
Court. No application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been filed for
amendment in written statement.
13. Thus, it is clear that there is no defence on the part of Municipal
Council/appellant that land in dispute was ever acquired by Municipal
Council, and compensation was paid to Chhotelal from whom the land in
dispute was purchased by the plaintiff.
14. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of considered opinion that Appellate Court did not commit any
mistake by holding that plaintiff has successfully established his title over the
land in dispute.
15. As no substantial question of law arises in the present case,
accordingly, judgment and decree dated 16.11.2016, passed by Second
Additional District Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha in Civil Appeal No.
56-A/2016, is hereby affirmed.
16. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
