Suresh Chandra vs Krishna Gopal
2025 Latest Caselaw 418 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Suresh Chandra vs Krishna Gopal on 6 May, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10052




                                                            1                            WP-6475-2025
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                  ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2025
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 6475 of 2025
                                                    SURESH CHANDRA
                                                         Versus
                                               KRISHNA GOPAL AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                                 Shri Anuraj Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.

                                 Shri Mudit Goswami - Advocate for the respondents.

                                                                ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by learned Additional Commissioner Morena Chambal Division whereby the Additional Commissioner Morena Chambal Division while allowing the review petition filed by the respondent had set-aside it own order dated 14.01.2019 passed in Appeal No.265/2016-17.

In brief, the facts of the case are that petitioner is the owner and

possession holder of the land bearing Survey no.78 (New survey no.213, 214 and 215) admeasuring area 5 bigha 1 Biswa (hectare -055) Situated at Village Milawali, Tehsil Vijaypur, District Sheopur (MP). Petitioner had purchased the suit land from the Father of respondent No.1 Chironji Lal vide registered sale-deed dated 20.12.1994. Thereafter, the name of petitioner got mutated as landlord and possession holder on the basis of said registered

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10052

2 WP-6475-2025 sale-deed. Respondent had moved an application before Tehsildar, Tehsil Vijaypur, District Sheopur for removing the name of the petitioner from the revenue records. Tehsildar vide order dated 23.01.2017 dismissed the application filed by the respondent on the ground that since a Civil Suit in respect of the suit land is pending before the Additional Civil Judge Class-l, Vijaypur, District Sheopur registered as RCS No.41A/2016, the mutation proceeding shall be subjected to outcome of the civil suit.

Thereafter, respondent no.1 filed an appeal against the order dated 23.01.2017 before Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Vijaypur, District Sheopur, which was registered as Case no.20/16-17. Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 06.06.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent on the ground that appeal was beyond limitation and no application for

condonation of delay was filed along with the appeal. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2017 and 23.01.2017, respondent no.1 filed a Second appeal before Additional Commissioner, Morena, Chambal Division which was registered as appeal no.265 /2016-17. Learned Additional Commissioner vide order dated 14.01.2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent stating that the jurisdiction Civil Court is superior in respect of deciding the question of ownership.

Respondent no.1 alongwith his mother and sisters had filed a Civil Suit against the petitioner in respect of the suit land for declaration of title and permanent injunction which was registered as Case No.RCS A- 100041/2016 (Savitri Devi & Ors. Vs. Suresh chandra & Ors.). Respondent no.1 alongwith the suit filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10052

3 WP-6475-2025 seeking temporary injunction which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 02.07.2019 holding that prima facie balance of convenience is not in favor of respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1/plaintiff is not in possession over the suit land. Thereafter respondent no.1 filed a review petition seeking review of its earlier order dated 14.01.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner in Case No. 265/2016-17/appeal which was registered as Review No.10/2018-19, the said review petition was allowed vide impugned order dated 30.06.2021 (Annexure P-1) and learned Additional commissioner reviewed its own order dated 14.01.2019 and set aside the order passed by Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2021, the present petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of respondent No.1 had executed a sale-deed in favour of petitioner on 20.12.1994 and thereafter his name was mutated in the revenue records. In the year 2015, father of respondent No.1 died and after that they preferred a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. After filing of the suit, they preferred review application before the learned Additional Commissioner for reviewing its earlier order dated 14.01.2019 which was allowed vide order dated 30.06.2021 but now the civil suit filed by respondent No.1 has been decided vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2025 in which the factum of execution of sale-deed by the father of respondent No.1 in favor of petitioner has been found to be true and the suit for declaration had been dismissed, thus, now nothing survives in this petition to be decided. It is, therefore,

prayed that the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by Additional Commissioner

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10052

4 WP-6475-2025 be set-aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent has not opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, a civil suit was preferred by the respondent No.1 alongwith his mother and sister for declaration of 1/3rd right in the property and permanent injunction which had got dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2025 in which while deciding issue No.2, it has been held by learned trial Court that the sale-deed executed in favour of petitioner dated 20.12.1994 by the father of respondent No.1 was genuine and could not be proved to be forged and fabricated document, thus, it could not be proved that the sale deed executed by father of respondent No.1 was null and void. Since the present case pertains to mutation and the entire controversy hinged around the genuineness of the sale-deed executed in favour of petitioner by the father of respondent No.1 which has been duly proved before the trial Court, nothing remains in this petition to be adjudicated upon, so also on account of the fact that the suit for declaring 1/3rd right of respondent/plaintiff in the property had been dismissed, nothing survives.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Morena, Chambal Division is hereby set-aside, likewise the order of SDO dated 06.06.2017 and Tehsildar dated 23.01.2017 are hereby set-aside. In the light of the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2025 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.100041A/2016 by Civil

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10052

5 WP-6475-2025 Judge, Junior Division, Vijaypur District Sheopur, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Revenue Court and get his name mutated in the revenue records.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

ojha