Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 26 (MP)

K. P. Choudhary v. Tulsidas

2013-01-03

R.S.JHA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri Mukhtar Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission and interim relief. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 6.9.2010, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Katni in C.A. No. 50-0A/08, whereby the judgment and decree of the Fourth Civil Judge Class I, Katni dated 24.10.2008 passed in C.S. No. 14-A06 has been set aside and reversed. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant purchased a part of Khasra No. 124, village Barhi, Tahsil Katni, District Jabalpur (now district Katni) by registered sale deed dated 16.3.1982 from father of respondent No. 1, however, by mistake or oversight, Khasra Nos. 130/1, 131 were mentioned in the sale deed. It is stated that respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 also purchased a part of the aforesaid Khasra numbers from the father of respondent No. 1 and similar mistakes were also committed in the sale deeds executed in their favour. On discovering the said mistake, the appellant filed an application before the Naib Tahsildar, Barhi, who by order dated 14.5.1993 permitted changes in the sale deed. It is stated that the father of respondent No. 1 Harprasad filed an appeal against the said order of Naib Tahsilar before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katni, who set aside the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar by order dated 28.3.1995, against which the appellant has filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, which was pending on the date of filing of the suit. However, as the respondent No. 1 was threatening the appellant and others of dispossession on the ground of discrepancies in the sale deed, the appellant filed a civil suit before the Court below, which was partly allowed and decreed permitting the appellant to approach the competent registrar for correction of the sale deed. 4. The respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal before the Second Additional District Judge, Katni, which has been allowed by the inpugned judgment and decree, hence this second appeal. 5. 4. The respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed an appeal before the Second Additional District Judge, Katni, which has been allowed by the inpugned judgment and decree, hence this second appeal. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the first appellate Court has erred in law in setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court inasmuch as the appellant and others had obtained an order correcting the mistakes made in the sale deeds from the competent revenue authority and therefore, they were entitled to a decree of declaration of title in respect of the corrected Khasra numbers. It is submitted that the appellant and the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are in fact continuing in possession on the land as there is no dispute between them, however, in view of the discrepancies in the sale deeds, the respondent No.1 is trying to create impediment in their possession by taking advantage thereof and in such curcumstances, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court be set aside. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. From a perusal of the record it is apparent that the appellant and the respondents No. 4 to 6 purchased the land from the father of respondent No. 1 through registered sale deeds and subsequent to the sale the appellant sought to change the Khasra numbers mentioned in the sale deed on the strength of an order passed by the revenue officer. In other words, the appellant seeks to amend the sale deed or obtain a correction therein without getting the sale deed correctied or amended in accordance with the provisions prescribed by the law, only on the strength of the order passed by the revenue authority. No provision of law permitting such a change in a registered sale deed has been placed before this Court and therefore, I find no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court and as no substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 7. No provision of law permitting such a change in a registered sale deed has been placed before this Court and therefore, I find no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court and the first appellate Court and as no substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 7. On the request of the learned counsel for the appellant and as prayed, it is stated that if so permissible or provided in the law, the appellant may resort to the remedy, if any, available to him for correction of the sale deed. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed.