Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 648 (MP)

Jeetan Prasad Kushwah v. Vinay Kumar Singh

2020-05-29

ANJULI PALO

body2020
ORDER : 1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No.2 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.09.1994, passed by the First Addl. District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No. 15a/1992 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 21.01.1992, passed by the First Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 52A/1989. 2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the appellate judge erred in law in holding that the suit land was a mortgage land after the abolition of JAGIR and the V.P.Abolition of Jagir Act, 1953 ? (ii) Whether in absence of an application and order under Section 22 of the V.P.Abolitions and Jagirs Act, the plaintiff seized to have any right in the suit land ? (iii) Whether by executing an unregistered sale deed on 18.12.1959, the plaintiff relinquished their rights ? (iv) Whether the suit is barred by limitation, and the learned judge misapplied the law by holding the same as within time ? 3. Before discussing the said question, it is essential to discuss the facts of the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No.2. 4. The suit was filed by respondent No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) against the appellant/defendant No.2 and respondent No.3/defendant No.1. It is admitted fact that the suit property bearing khasra No. 69 admeasuring 60 bigha 16 bishwa and khasra No. 70 admeasuring 70 rakba 7 bishwa situated at village Patari, Tehsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna was the ancestral property of Umapratap Singh who is the father plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In the year 1954, Umapratap mortgaged his land with defendant No.1/respondent No. 3-Jageshwar for Rs.1000/-. After 5-6 years, some part of the mortgaged property (bearing Khasra No. 46 and 47) was redeemed by Umapratap after paying Rs. 500/-. Thereafter, Umapratap died. However, due to weak financial condition, the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not redeem the mortgage suit property. In the year 1960-61, defendant No.1/respondent No.3-Jageshwar mortgaged the suit property bearing Khasra No. 69 and 70 with the appellant/defendant No.2 for Rs. 500/-. 5. In the year 1983, plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 verbally requested the appellant/defendant No.2 to redeem the property, but the same was denied and appellant/defendant No.2 claimed his ownership over the suit property. 6. In the year 1960-61, defendant No.1/respondent No.3-Jageshwar mortgaged the suit property bearing Khasra No. 69 and 70 with the appellant/defendant No.2 for Rs. 500/-. 5. In the year 1983, plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 verbally requested the appellant/defendant No.2 to redeem the property, but the same was denied and appellant/defendant No.2 claimed his ownership over the suit property. 6. The suit property bearing Khasra No. 69 and 70 situated at village Patan, Tehsil Raghuraj Nagar, District Satna was ancestral property of father of plaintiff (Umapratap Singh). The plaintiffs/respondents were in possession of the suit property till 15.04.1954. Umapratap being karta of his family, mortgaged the suit property in favour of the defendants/respondent No.3 Jageshwar (since deceased) for Rs. 1,000/- on 16.04.1954 by registered sale deed and delivered the possession to Jageshwar. Accordingly, the LRs of respondent No.3/defendant are in permissive possession of the suit property. Therefore, they are not entitled to claim their title over the suit property on the plea of "adverse possession". They are the mortgagee. Hence, their rights are limited. Respondent No.1 and 2 are ready to pay the amount to redeem the suit property. Therefore, the learned Court below in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the impugned judgment rightly held that the appellant-Jeetan Prasad Kushwah has failed to establish that three years prior to abolition of 'Jagirdari', he was in possession of the suit property or his name was recorded in the revenue records as possession holder. Allotment order (Ex. D/1) dated 24.07.1961 specifically shows that the name of Umapratap was registered as possession holder in revenue entries. 7. Hence, on the basis of Ex. D/1, the appellant has failed to acquire any title over the suit property. 8. On the basis of execution of unregistered sale deed the appellant cannot claim title over the suit property nor unregistered sale deed. Ex. D/4 is admissible for any collateral purpose. 9. The appellant also failed to establish that unregistered sale deed Ex. D/4 was signed by Umapratap, owner of the suit property in favour of the appellant. This Court is in agreement with the findings of learned appellant Court below expressed in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment. 10. The appellant has admitted that suit property was mortgaged in their favour. Relation between the parties as mortgager and mortgagee is duly established. Admission of the appellants regarding the same cannot be ignored. This Court is in agreement with the findings of learned appellant Court below expressed in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment. 10. The appellant has admitted that suit property was mortgaged in their favour. Relation between the parties as mortgager and mortgagee is duly established. Admission of the appellants regarding the same cannot be ignored. Nor it is essential for respondent No. 1 and 2 to prove the admitted facts in their favour. Hence, respondents are rightly entitled to redeem the suit property after paying Rs. 500/- to the appellant. They are also entitled to recover possession of the suit property from the appellant. 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court comes to the conclusion that the learned trial Court has rightly allowed the appeal in favour of the respondents. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.