Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 11 (MP)

Samna Kol v. Pooranlal

2013-01-02

R.S.JHA

body2013
ORDER 1. The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.1.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Amarpatan, District Satna in Civil Appeal No. 121A/05 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Maihar in Civil Suit No. 74A/1996 dated 28.6.2004 has been affirmed. 2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, are that the appellant/defendant No. 1, who is the owner of Khasra Nos. 218, 217 and 221 of village Kalyanpur, sold the said lands to the respondents after obtaining due permission in that regard from the Collector, Satna on 23.11.1992 and 25.5.1993 by sale deeds dated 12.7.1993 and 22.4.1993, as he is in need of money for the marriage of his daughter. However, subsequently, the appellants filed an application before the revenue authorities under section 170B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Land Revenue Code’), alleging that the respondents had taken over forcible possession of the land and that the land had been sold in contravention of the provisions of section 170B as well as section 165 of the Land Revenue Code as due and proper permission was not obtained from the authorities and on the basis of the said application the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned passed order dated 25.2.2003 permitting the appellants to take over possession of the disputed land holding the sale to be in contravention of law. 3. The respondent/plaintiff, being aggrieved filed a suit before the Court below which was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2004 and the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.7.2006 wherein the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been affirmed. 4. The appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of both the Courts below have filed this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- “I. Whether in view of report of Tahsildar dated 25.5.1992 in relation to disputed lands jointly recorded in the name of Fuliya, Samna and Tijiya, the Courts below erred in law in accepting the permission granted by Collector on dated 23.11.1992 only in favour of Samna, contrary to procedure prescribed by law? II. II. Whether the Courts below erred in law in not considering that the permission to sale the disputed lands was granted by the Collector in contravention of section 165(2)(A) of hte MPLR Code? III. Whether in view of section 170-B(1) and (2) of the MPLR Code the plaintiffs were bound to notify the information to SDO as to how they claimed to have obtained the disputed lands, within two years from the date of alleged sale and in view of failure of the plaintiffs to notify such information within the stipulated period, the Courts below seriously erred in law in not holding the alleged claim on the disputed lands without any lawful authority and on the expiration of the stipulated period the disputed lands should have reverted to the appellants? IV. Whether in view of the appellants being members of aboriginal tribe, the alleged sale of the disputed lands in favour of the plaintiffs by them on the grounds of obtaining the same by practicing fraud, was exclusively determinable by the SDO under section 170B of the MPLR Code and in view of legal order passed by the SDO after making inquiry and giving hearing to both the parties, the Courts below committed an error of law in declaring the order of SDO dated 25.2.2003 as illegal? V. Whether in view of exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorites in relation to matter covered under section 170B of the MPLR Code, and in view of specific bar put forth by section 257 of the MPLR Code, the Courts below seriously erred in law in holding the suit of the plaintiffs to be maintainable? VI. Whether in view of no necessity of marriage of 2nd daughter of Samna Kol, appellant No.1 being Adivasi, uneducated, putting thumb impression, the sale deeds being witnessed only by plaintiffs and his real brother, the Courts below seriously erred in law, in not holding the execution of it by practicing fraud by the plaintiffs with the appellant No.1? VII. Whether in view of the evidence of the defendants and his witnesses, evidence of plaintiffs and his witnesses and in view of admission of the plaintiffs Pooran Lal (PW1) in relation to no necessity of marriage of 2nd daughter of appellant No.1, the Courts below erred in law in holding the sale deeds to have been executed according to law? VIII. VIII. Whether in view of not framing any issue by the trial Court in relation to order passed by SDO on dated 25.2.2003 under section 170B of the MPLR Code, the Courts below committed an error of law in declaring the order dated 25.2.2003 of the SDO as null and void? IX. Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are on no evidence and same are based on unsound reasoning therefore findings are perverse?” 5. From a perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate, it is apparent that both the Courts below have recorded a finding to the effect that the land was sold by the appellant after obtaining due permission from the Collector by orders dated 23.11.1992 and 25.5.1993 and that the appellant, after having sold the property and having obtained consideration in that regard, has filed the suit without having established or proved the fact that the permission as sought by the appellant was not in respect of the land in question or that the sales were made in contravention of the provisions of the Land Revenue Code. The appellate Court has also recorded a finding that the suit has been filed by the respondents for permanent injunction and declaration of title apart from seeking a relief of setting aside the order of the SDO and is, therefore, maintainable and is within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and is not barred by section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. I am of the considered opinion that this conclusion is in accordance with law as section 257 of the Code does not bar the filing of a civil suit for permanent injunction or declaration of title, more so in a case like the present one where the civil suit was instituted prior in point of time. 6. Having perused the judgment of the Courts below it is apparent that the conclusion recorded by the Courts below is based on appreciation of the documents and evidence on record and, therefore, does not suffer from any perversity or material irregularity. It is also apparent that there is a concurrent finding of fact against the appellant which does not call for any interference by this Court. It is also apparent that the substantial questions of law as framed by the appellant do not arise for consideration by this Court which is accordingly dismissed.