REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2434 OF 2006

Babu Lal Sharma …. Appellant

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh         …. Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

 1. By this judgment and order we propose to dispose of this appeal which has  

been filed by the appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and  

order passed in the second appeal by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking for a decree for declaration of  

his title in respect of the suit property comprising Khasra No. 1709, Rakba  

No. 1.84 situated at village Bagota, Tehsil  Narsinghgarh Purva, District  

Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh.  The case as pleaded in the plaint was that  

the aforesaid land earlier comprised of an area of 1.84 acres of land which

was under the title and possession of Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the father  

of the appellant-plaintiff out of which some portion was under the physical  

use of Mahadev Prasad Richharia on which a house was constructed and  

some other portion was surrounded by ‘Bari’.   It  was also alleged that  

from the aforesaid Khasra No. 1709 consisting of 1.84 acres of area, 0.53  

decimal of land was sold to one Chhedilal Gupta in the year 1945 and that  

Mahadev  Prasad  Richharia,  the  father  of  the  appellant-plaintiff  had  

executed a sale deed to that effect in favour of Chhedilal Gupta and had  

also handed over the possession to him on the date of sale of the land.  It  

was  further  alleged  that  after  the  aforesaid  sale  of  land  the  remaining  

portion of disputed land i.e. 1.31 acres of land remained under the title and  

possession  of  Mahadev  Prasad  Richharia,  the  father  of  the  appellant-

plaintiff.  After the death of Mahadev Prasad Richharia, Babu Lal Sharma,  

the  appellant-plaintiff  became his  successor  and,  therefore,  owned  and  

possessed the said disputed area of 1.31 acres. Subsequently, however, it  

came to  his  knowledge that  the  Patwari  of  village  Bagota without  any  

order of the competent authority entered the disputed land as Government  

land in the revenue records somewhere in the year 1953-54 although the  

said land was being shown in the name of Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the  

2

father of the appellant-plaintiff in the revenue records for the year 1953-

54.   

3. Consequently, an application for rectification was moved by the appellant-

plaintiff in the revenue court alleging that since the entry with respect to  

the disputed land was entered in the revenue record as Government land  

by Patwari of village Bagota without the order of the competent authority  

which fact became known to the appellant-plaintiff only in the year 1984,  

the  said record ought  to  be rectified.  The said application  filed  by the  

appellant-plaintiff  was,  however,  rejected  by  the  revenue  court  on  

20.04.1984.   

4. An appeal against the aforesaid order was filed by the appellant-plaintiff in  

the court of Sub-Divisional Officer which was allowed by an order dated  

26.06.1988 and the matter was remanded back to the court of Tehsildar,  

Chhattarpur  for  fresh  consideration.   The  Tehsildar,  Chhattarpur  

reconsidered  the  matter  but,  however,  passed  an  order  on  10.11.1995  

against the appellant-plaintiff.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Tehsildar, Chhattarpur an appeal  

was filed in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer which was dismissed by  

the Sub-Divisional Officer.

3

6. Consequently, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit in the court of 2nd Civil  

Judge, Class-I, Chhattarpur, Madhya Pradesh bearing Civil Suit No. 96-A  

of  1998  seeking  for  a  decree  of  declaration  of  title,  ownership  and  

possession.  In the said suit it was alleged that 0.53 decimal of land was  

sold to one Chhedilal Gupta by Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the father of  

the appellant-plaintiff in the year 1945 from Khasra No. 1709 consisting of  

1.84 acres of land.   A notice under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh  

State  Revenue  Code  was  issued  to  Chhedilal  Gupta  when  he  started  

construction of a house on the aforesaid land.  In the said case an order  

was passed imposing a fine of Rs. 1500/- along with an order of eviction  

from the land against Chhedilal Gupta.   

7. As against the aforesaid order of fine and eviction Dr. Pannalal Gupta, the  

son of Chhedilal Gupta filed a civil suit for declaration of title in the civil  

court.  Although the trial court dismissed the aforesaid civil suit, the first  

appellate court granted a decree in favour of Dr. Pannalal Gupta in respect  

of said 0.53 decimal of land.   

8. It was stated that the aforesaid case ultimately came to the Supreme Court  

whereupon the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of  

Madhya Pradesh.  Accordingly, the decree passed by the first appellate  

4

court in favour of Dr. Pannalal Gupta was affirmed. In view of the same, it  

was alleged that the remaining portion of the land measuring 1.31 acres  

could not have been entered into the revenue records as Government land  

by the Patwari.   

9. The  aforesaid  suit  was  contested  by  the  respondent  herein  and  upon  

framing of the issues on the pleadings of the parties, the parties led their  

evidence.  On completion of the trial of the suit, the trial court dismissed  

the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant.   

10.The  appellant  being  aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  judgment  and  order  

preferred  an  appeal.   The  first  appellate  court  after  hearing  the  appeal  

reversed the judgment and order passed by the trial court  and passed a  

decree  in  favour  of  the  plaintiff-appellant.   The respondent-State  being  

aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  judgment  and  order  filed  a  second  appeal  

bearing No. 372 of 2002 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which was  

admitted on 08.10.2003.  After admitting the appeal the High Court heard  

the appeal and by a detailed judgment and decree passed on 19.10.2005  

allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the first appellate court.

11.The present appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the aforesaid  

judgment and decree passed by the High Court.

5

12.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff relied upon the  

judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in respect of 0.53  

decimal of land which was allegedly a part of the disputed land initially.  It  

was submitted that the said land being a part of the suit land in the present  

case and a decree having already been passed in favour of the appellant-

plaintiff  and the  said  land having been transferred by  Mahadev Prasad  

Richharia, the father of the appellant-plaintiff only in favour of Chhedilal  

Gupta, the predecessor-in-interest of Dr. Pannalal Gupta, the said decree  

should have been relied upon and referred to in the present case since the  

said decision had relevance and bearing while deciding the present case.  

Counsel for the respondent however refuted the submission contradicting  

inter  alia  that  the  judgment  in  respect  of  0.53  decimal  of  land  has  no  

relevance at all as the said judgment was passed in respect of another piece  

of land and the parties were also different.

13.In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel appearing  

for the parties we have perused the records including the judgments passed  

by all  the three courts  below.   Our attention was drawn to the various  

documents placed on record which were exhibited in the suit.   

6

14.In our considered opinion reliance placed on the judgment of the various  

courts including the Supreme Court in respect of the land measuring 0.53  

decimal which was allegedly sold by Mahadev Prasad Richharia, the father  

of the appellant-plaintiff to Chhedilal Gupta is totally misplaced.  The said  

land was transferred way back in the year 1945.  We are here concerned  

with an area of land measuring 1.31 acres only.  The said land is entered in  

the revenue records in the name of the Government of Madhya Pradesh.  

The revenue courts have given a finding against the appellant-plaintiff.   

15.In the documents which are exhibited it is clearly mentioned that these are  

not cultivable lands but originally they were ‘Khadans’ (mines) and the  

same land was declared as Nazool lands.  Therefore, the revenue records  

which are referred to in the present case clearly depict that the land has all  

along been the Government land.  The land was also said to be in a ruinous  

state and, therefore, there was no possession of the appellant-plaintiff with  

respect  to the said land.   No argument  for claiming a  right  by way of  

adverse possession was made before us which although was a plea taken in  

the courts below.  The appellant-plaintiff has also admitted in his evidence  

that he has been residing outside the suit  land.   Therefore, it  is  clearly  

established that the appellant-plaintiff did not even have the possession of  

the suit land.  Furthermore, there is no document to prove his title.  He has  

7

not been able to prove and establish as to how Mahadev Prasad Richharia,  

his father came to own the said property which was a Government land.  

The oldest khasra entry which is available on record is Exhibit P-11 which  

pertains to the period of 1943-44.  In the said khasra entry names of the  

appellant-plaintiff  are  not  recorded  in  any  capacity  whatsoever  in  the  

relevant colums.  Rather in the column meant for the name of ‘Kastkar’  

(Cultivator) and his status, cross sign is shown whereas the nature of the  

land is shown as ‘BA AR RASTA’.  In khasra corresponding to year 1951-

52 (Exhibit P-12) the name of the   appellant-plaintiff is not mentioned at  

all in any capacity.  The name of appellante-plaintiff was recorded in the  

next year i.e. 1953-54 which is Exhibit P-4 but there also the name of the  

appellant-plaintiff is recorded in column No. 7 whereas column No. 8 was  

meant to show the name of the cultivator occupying them.  The nature of  

the land is not shown to be cultivable but is shown to be as ‘Khadan’ i.e.  

mines.  The name of the appellant-plaintiff is not shown in any capacity in  

the revenue records but clearly the name of Dr. Pannalal Gupta is shown to  

be entered in respect of the land namely 0.53 acres. However, the name of  

the appellant-plaintiff is not recorded at all in respect of the remaining land  

i.e.  1.31  acres  which  is  the  subject  matter  of  the  present  case.   It  is,  

therefore,  clearly  established  that  the  disputed  property  is  in  no  way  

8

connected with that of the subject  matter  of the proceedings measuring  

0.53 acres of land.  We also find from the record that the case pertaining to  

0.53 acres of land was fought out between different parties.  Therefore, the  

decision rendered in the  said case has no relevance to the  facts  of  the  

present case which is to be decided on the basis of the facts proved herein.

16.In  view of  the  aforesaid  observations,  we find no  merit  in  the  present  

appeal which is accordingly dismissed.  

  ...............………………………J.         [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

   …................………………..J.              [Dr. B.S. Chauhan]

New Delhi, July 7, 2009

9