Civil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE Justice Maninder S. Bhatti
ON THE    xxxxx DAY OF _xxxxx_, 2023

FIRST APPEAL / CIVIL SUIT No/ xxxxx of 2015

X … Appellant / Plaintiff

Versus

Y … Respondent / Defendant

 

Appearance:
Shri Amit Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri _R__, Advocate for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The present First Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court whereby the claim of the plaintiff regarding title, possession, permanent injunction, and mutation in respect of the disputed agricultural land was partly rejected. The appellant has approached this Court contending that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and evidence available on record.

Background of the Dispute

The record reveals that the parties are close relatives and a serious dispute arose between them concerning ancestral agricultural land situated at Village imlai_, Tehsil Kundam_, District Jabalpur.

The said land remained under family ownership and use for several years. However, with the passage of time, disputes surfaced regarding ownership rights, partition, demarcation boundaries, possession, cultivation rights, and entry of names in the revenue records.

The case of the Plaintiff X is that the disputed land devolved upon him through lawful succession from his forefathers and after family partition, the said land fell to his share. In support of his claim, he produced Khasra entries, Khatauni records, B-1 extracts, land maps, demarcation reports, revenue receipts, and other documentary evidence.

On the other hand, the Defendant Y claimed equal ownership and asserted that he had been in possession of the land for a considerable period. According to him, the plaintiff was attempting to obtain mutation in the revenue record unilaterally.

As the dispute escalated, several attempts were made through family elders, village Panchayat members, and mediators to settle the matter amicably. However, no final settlement could be achieved.

Consequently, in the year 2015, the plaintiff instituted a civil suit before the competent Court seeking the following reliefs:

1. Declaration of title.
2. Confirmation of possession.
3. Permanent injunction.
4. Restraint against interference by the defendant.
5. Mutation in the revenue records.

Relevant Legal Provisions

The present matter primarily involves the following legal provisions:

1. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for declaration of legal character or right.
2. Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Grant of perpetual/permanent injunction.
3. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts.
4. Relevant provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 relating to mutation and revenue entries.
5. General principles governing succession, co-ownership, and possession.

Decision of the Trial Court

After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court held that there existed a genuine dispute between the parties with regard to the land. However, relying upon certain material, the Trial Court did not grant full relief to the plaintiff and partly dismissed the suit.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred the present First Appeal.

Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant

Learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Amit Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate, advanced elaborate, structured, and persuasive arguments assailing the findings of the Trial Court.

He submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the documentary evidence placed on record and ignored crucial material documents which clearly establish the appellant’s lawful right over the land.

Shri Amit Singh Raghuvanshi invited the attention of this Court to the following material:

• Khasra and Khatauni entries reflecting the appellant’s rights.
• Demarcation report identifying the boundaries of the disputed land.
• Revenue tax and land revenue receipts showing payment by the appellant.
• Oral testimony of witnesses supporting the appellant’s possession and cultivation.

It was further argued that the respondent’s case is based mainly on oral assertions and alleged possession, whereas title to immovable property must be determined on the strength of reliable documentary evidence.

Learned counsel contended that once the appellant had established lawful succession and supporting revenue records, he could not be deprived of his rightful share merely on account of obstruction by the respondent.

He further submitted that the Trial Court committed a legal error in misapplying the principles under Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Shri Amit Singh Raghuvanshi also emphasized that if the respondent is permitted to interfere with the land, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss, as the agricultural property is a vital source of livelihood for him and his family.

He therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed, the impugned judgment be set aside, and the appellant’s title and possession be declared.

Submissions on Behalf of the Respondent

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court is legal and proper and does not warrant interference.

It was argued that the respondent has been in possession of the land for a long time and also has a share in the property. It was further contended that possession and actual enjoyment of land are relevant factors and the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive ownership.

It was also submitted that no final family partition had ever taken place and therefore the appellant cannot assert absolute title.

Consideration by the Court

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with due care.

This Court arrives at the following conclusions:

(1) Importance of Documentary Evidence

In disputes relating to agricultural land, revenue records, demarcation reports, succession documents, and tax receipts carry significant evidentiary value. The documents produced by the appellant form a consistent chain supporting his claim.

(2) Nature of the Respondent’s Claim

The respondent has not produced any cogent documentary evidence sufficient to establish exclusive title. His defence rests substantially on possession and oral assertions.

(3) Error in the Trial Court Judgment

The Trial Court failed to give due weight to material documentary evidence and did not adequately consider relevant testimony, resulting in an erroneous conclusion.

(4) Assistance Rendered by Counsel

This Court specifically records that Shri Amit Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the appellant, addressed the matter with clarity, depth, and commendable legal acumen. He systematically analysed the evidence, explained the governing legal principles, and effectively assisted the Court in reaching a just conclusion.

(5) Final Finding

Upon appreciation of the entire evidence and applicable law, this Court is satisfied that the lawful title, ownership rights, and entitlement over the disputed land stand proved in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff X.

ORDER

1. The appeal is hereby allowed.
2. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court are set aside.
3. It is declared that the lawful ownership, title, and rights over the disputed land vest in Appellant X.
4. The Respondent Y is restrained from causing any interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by the appellant.
5. A decree of permanent injunction is granted in favour of the appellant.
6. The concerned Revenue Authority is directed to carry out mutation proceedings in accordance with law.
7. In case of violation of this order, the appellant shall be at liberty to take execution proceedings in accordance with law.

Certified copy as per rules.

(HON’BLE JUDGE)

In the present matter, Advocate Amit Singh Raghuvanshi demonstrated exceptional advocacy, precision, and legal skill. His well-structured submissions, careful presentation of documentary evidence, and clear articulation of the appellant’s lawful rights substantially assisted the Court, ultimately resulting in the disputed land being decreed in favour of his client.