Madhya Pradesh High Court
Morsingh vs Prakash on 28 March, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8542
1 SA-636-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 636 of 2024
MORSINGH
Versus
PRAKASH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kailash Chandra Yadav - advocate for the appellant.
ORDER
1. Heard on I.A.No.2620/2024, which is an application under Section
5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and
the slight delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant is also heard on the question of
admission.
4. This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by
plaintiff / appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by
the Courts below whereby his claim for declaration that the mutation order in
favour of defendant No.1 is null and void has been dismissed.
5. As per plaintiff he had entered into an agreement with respect to
the suit land bearing Survey No.1/1 and 1/2/1 area 1.415 hectare with
defendant No.1 for a total consideration of Rs.3,20,000/-. A sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by defendant No.1 to plaintiff and the remaining
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8542
2 SA-636-2024
amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was to be paid at the time of mutation. The plaintiff
believed defendant No.1, but at the time of mutation he did not pay the sum
of Rs.1,70,000/- to him and surreptitiously got the mutation done. The same
is in absence of any consideration and without any notice to the plaintiff
hence is void in terms of Section 109, 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code,
1959 and Rule 27 of the mutation rules.
6. The defence of defendant No.1 was that he has purchased the suit
land by registered sale deed dated 11/4/2008 from plaintiff. The entire sale
consideration was paid by him to plaintiff and his mother prior to execution
of sale deed itself. He had applied for mutation on the basis of his sale deed
in which plaintiff and his mother had consented. The suit has been filed by
the plaintiff 8 years thereafter which is not tenable.
7. The Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's claim holding that
he has failed to prove that defendant No.1 did not pay the amount of
Rs.1,70,000/- to him and has got himself mutated over the suit land. The
mutation in favour of defendant No.1 hence cannot be set aside. It was
further held that plaintiff's claim was barred by time.
8 . I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
plaintiff and have perused the record.
9. The plaintiff has not challenged the sale deed dated 11/4/2008
executed by him in favour of defendant No.1. His only relief is that the
mutation effected with respect to the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 be
set aside on the ground that amount of Rs.1,70,000/- as was agreed to
between the parties has not been paid by defendant No.1 to him. In the sale
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8542
3 SA-636-2024
deed dated 11/4/2008, there is a specific recital that the amount of sale
consideration has been received by the sellers prior to execution of the sale
deed. The sale deed is signed by plaintiff and ever since its execution no
objection was taken by him as regards non-payment of sale consideration.
The sale deed is a registered document and the recitals made therein have to
be given due effect to. No legally acceptable evidence has been produced by
the plaintiff to show that at the time of registration of the sale deed it was
agreed that an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- would be paid at the time of
mutation. There was no entry to that effect in the sale deed. Mere oral
contention of plaintiff in this regard is hence wholly unacceptable. Moreover,
in paragraph No.5 of his cross examination the plaintiff has admitted that the
entire amount of sale consideration has been received by him and his mother.
Thus the contention of plaintiff that an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was agreed
to be paid to him by defendant No.1 at the time of mutation has rightly not
been accepted.
1 0 . Though it has been further contended that mutation was got
effected by defendant No.1 without any knowledge or notice to plaintiff but
no document as regards the mutation proceedings have been produced by the
plaintiff from which it could be shown that he was not issued any notice of
the proceedings and was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Even the
mutation order has not been produced. Though the sale deed was executed on
16/5/2008 and mutation was effected shortly thereafter the suit was instituted
by plaintiff for the declaratory relief on 14/7/2016 which was apparently
barred by time by virtue of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8542
4 SA-636-2024
rightly been held.
11 . Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any
illegality having been committed by the Courts below in dismissing the claim
of plaintiff. The judgment and decree passed by them are based upon the
evidence available on record and application of legal principles applicable
thereto. No illegality or perversity has been pointed out. No substantial
question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly,
dismissed in-limine.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
SS/-
