Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 183 (MP)

SULTAN SINGH v. HAKIM SINGH

2020-02-04

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2020
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for appellants. Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondents. This Second Appeal under section 100, Civil Procedure Code has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17-12-2018 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/2015, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 17-2-2014 passed by Fifth Civil Judge, Class-II, Morena in Civil Suit No. 44-A/2012. 2. Heard on the question of admission. 3. The necessary facts for disposal of this appeal in short are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is their case that the suit land consists of Survey No. 219 area 13 Bigha 7 Biswa and Survey No. 222 area 2.633 hectare. The appellants were granted Patta of the said land and they remained in possession and were continuously cultivating the property. The respondents are the influential persons, as defendant No. 1 had remained Sarpanch for 10 years and accordingly, he obtained a Patta of Survey No. 219 area 10 Bigha and from Survey No. 222 an area of 5 Bigha 11 Biswa has been given to defendant No. 1 and from Survey No. 222/1 min an area of 2 Bigha has been given to defendant No. 2 on Patta. On 25-9-2012 the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the appellants and made an attempt to take possession. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed an appeal for cancellation of the Patta and also filed a suit for injunction. 4. The defendants filed their written statement and it was pleaded that they have received the Patta in accordance with law. 5. The trial Court framed the issues and after recording the evidence dismissed the suit filed by the appellants by holding that the plaintiffs have failed to file any documentary evidence to show their title and possession over the land in dispute. Even the defendant No. 3/State has not pleaded that any Patta was ever given to the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiffs have not challenged the Patta given to the private defendants. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants filed an appeal which too has suffered dismissal by judgment and decree dated 17-12-2018 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Morena in RCA No. 14-A/2015. 7. Further, the plaintiffs have not challenged the Patta given to the private defendants. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants filed an appeal which too has suffered dismissal by judgment and decree dated 17-12-2018 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Morena in RCA No. 14-A/2015. 7. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, the appellants have filed the present appeal on the following proposed substantial questions of law : – “i. Whether learned Courts below erred in law in dismissing the suit of plaintiffs particularly when plaintiffs title is duly proved ? ii. Whether the Courts below erred in law in not deciding the issue which is going to the crux of the matter and which has been proposed as issue before the appellate Court also ? iii. Whether the Courts below have erred in law in holding that merely because Patta has been executed, therefore, plaintiffs do not have any right while previous possession of plaintiffs over the land has been duly proved ? iv. Whether without identification of the boundary of the property, the Patta which has been executed in favour of defendants can be said to be rightly executed without specification of the boundary thereof ? v. Whether the Courts below erred in law in ignoring the Ex-P/1 to P/4 the entries which are showing continuous and consistent possession of the plaintiffs as owner ? vi. Whether the Courts below have erred in law in refusing the injunction to the plaintiffs when his possession has been duly recorded ? vii. Whether merely because State has executed the Patta right of plaintiffs can be said to be vanished? Any other substantial question of law which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be framed.” 8. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the Courts below committed a material illegality by ignoring the Khasra Panchshala, Ex.P/1 to P/4, to show the continuous constant possession of plaintiffs as owner. It is further submitted that since no identification of the property by showing boundary was mentioned in the Patta executed in favour of the defendants, therefore, it cannot be said that the Patta was rightly executed in favour of the defendants. It is further submitted that since no identification of the property by showing boundary was mentioned in the Patta executed in favour of the defendants, therefore, it cannot be said that the Patta was rightly executed in favour of the defendants. It is further submitted that merely because the Patta has been executed in favour of defendants would not make them entitled to take possession of the property because the land in dispute was already in possession of the plaintiffs. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 10. So far as the question of possession is concerned, it is a pure disputed question of fact. The plaintiffs had not taken any steps for setting aside the Patta which was granted in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. It is well established principle of law that mere entry in the revenue record is not a document of title and it can be used only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (Dead) Th. LR vs. Arthur Import and Export Company and others, by judgment dated 31st January, 2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1330 of 2019 [Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 9394 of 2012] has held as under : – “8. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. [See Sawarni (Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 , Balwant Singh and anr. vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. and ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma and ors. vs. State of Karnataka and ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591 ].” 12. So far as the question of long possession of the plaintiff is concerned, the plaintiffs had claimed their possession on the basis of their self claimed ownership. It is well established principle of law that the concurrent findings of facts should not be interfered by this Court even if the same are erroneous unless and until the said findings are pointed out to be perverse. It is well established principle of law that the concurrent findings of facts should not be interfered by this Court even if the same are erroneous unless and until the said findings are pointed out to be perverse. No perversity could be pointed out by the counsel for the appellants, although he tried to convince this Court by pointing out from the evidence that the findings are erroneous. In the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 17-12-2018 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/2015 and the judgment and decree dated 17-2-2014 passed by Fifth Civil Judge, Class-II, Morena in Civil Suit No. 44-A/2012 are hereby affirmed. 13. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.