Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Bilkis Jahan vs The State Of M.P. And Ors. on 17 September, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45853
1 SA-898-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 17 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 898 of 2005
SMT.BILKIS JAHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Lalwani - Senior Advocate with Shri Priyank Awasthy and Shri
Abhishek Singh - Advocates for the appellant.
Shri Ramji Pandey - Government Advocate for respondent 1/State.
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.8079/2005, which is an application for substitution of
LRs of respondent 2 on record.
2. Upon due consideration I.A. No.8079/2005 is allowed with the direction
to learned counsel for the appellant to carry out necessary substitution in the
memo of appeal during the course of the day.
3. Also heard on the question of admission.
4 . This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2005 passed by 11th Additional
District Judge, Bhopal in regular civil appeal No.18-A/2004 affirming the
judgment and decree dated 22.12.2003 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Bhopal
in civil suit no.271-A/2002 whereby both the Courts below have dismissed the
appellant/plaintiff's suit for declaration of title, declaration of possession and for
issuance of direction to mutate the name of plaintiff in the revenue record.
5 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that undisputedly the suit
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45853
2 SA-898-2005
property was ancestral property of the plaintiff, but after death of plaintiff's father
- Nazir Khan, brothers of the plaintiff got their names recorded/mutated in the
revenue record and treating the land to be belonging to plaintiff's brothers, ceiling
proceedings were initiated/finalized and the suit land was declared surplus. He
submits that plaintiff being one of the successors of Nazir Khan was having equal
share and further the brothers namely Hamid, Halim and Jalil gifted the suit
property to the plaintiff by way of oral hiba and thereafter the same was also
acknowledged by the document (Ex.P/34). He submits that oral hiba was proved
in accordance with law, but Courts below have committed an illegality in holding
that the plaintiff has not been able to prove the hiba. He also submits that the
factum of possession is also a proven fact on record, but Courts below have
committed an illegality in dismissing the suit and in recording findings of
possession against the plaintiff. With these submissions he prays for admission of
the second appeal.
6 . Shri Ramji Pandey, Government Advocate appearing for respondent
1/State supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below and
prays for dismissal of second appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Although the plaintiff has come with the case that the suit property was
ancestral property and along with brothers, she was also having share in the suit
property, but in the plaint neither any date of death of father, has been mentioned
nor it has been mentioned as to when the property was recorded in the name of
brothers. Apparently the instant suit has been filed on 07.03.2001 and in the
plaint, the plaintiff has also not disclosed her age, certainly for the reasons best
known to her. Upon due consideration of the oral evidence adduced by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45853
3 SA-898-2005
plaintiff, Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has not been able
to prove the oral hiba, which was allegedly acknowledged by way of document
(Ex.P/34). It is also apparent from the record that the alleged oral hiba was not
given effect in the revenue record. Nothing is available on record to show as to
why the plaintiff did not try to get her name mutated in the revenue record on the
basis of alleged oral hiba of the year 1975. Both the Courts below have also
observed that the disputed land has already gone in ceiling and has vested in the
State Government.
9 . Even after arguing at length, learned counsel for the appellant has not
been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of
facts recorded by Courts below regarding proof of hiba and physical possession of
the plaintiff over the land. Upon due consideration of the entire material available
on record, this Court also does not find any illegality in the concurrent judgment
and decree passed by Courts below.
10. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law, this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
