1 2025:CGHC:59228 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 507 of 2012 1 - Santram S/o Bandan Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. Odekera, Tah. And P.S. Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Madhuri Wd/o Bandan Singh, Aged About 70 Years, R/o. Odekera, Tah. And P.S. Dabhra, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Chamru S/o Ganga Ram Aged About 70 Years R/o. Odekera, Tah. And P.S. Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Karma S/o Punuram Aged About 32 Years R/o. Odekera, Tah. And P.S. Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Jay Lal S/o Daulat Ram Aged About 60 Years R/o. Odekera, Tah. And P.S. Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sukhi Lal S/o Pila Ram Aged About 44 Years R/o. Odekera, Tah. And P.S. Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 (a)- Mangli Bai Wd/o Suk Lal Aged About 38 Years R/o. Odekera, Tah. And P.S. Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (b) Parkhit S/o Suk Lal Aged About 21 Years R/o. Odekera, Tah. And P.S. Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (c) Shashipal S/o Suk Lal Aged About 11 Years (Minor), Through- natural guardian mother- Mangli Bai, Caste Kanwar, R/o. Odekera, Tah. And P.S. Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Collector, Janjgir, P.S. Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.6/State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer For other Respondents : None, though served. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.10 11:00:17 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 05/12/2025 Heard 1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellants No.1 and 2 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.10.2012, passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Sakti, in Civil Appeal No. 74-A/2012, whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiffs, has been allowed and judgment and decree dated 15.04.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Dabhra, in Civil Suit No. 85-A/2007 was set-aside and a decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiffs. 2. The present second appeal has been admitted on 08.04.2013 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether finding of the lower appellate Court for title and possession of the respondents No. 1 & 5 is justified?” And by the order dated 04.11.2025, the typographical mistake in the substantial question of law has been corrected, which reads as under:- “Whether finding of the lower appellate Court for title and possession of the respondents No. 1 to 5 is justified?” 3. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties shown in the civil suit are being taken in the present appeal. 3 4. The plaintiffs had filed a civil suit for declaration of title over the suit land bearing khasra No. 406/3, area 2.52 acres, situated at village Odekera, tahsil Dabhra, district Janjgir-Champa, the entries in the relevant revenue records of the suit land be declared as illegal, permanent injunction against the defendants and confirmation of possession of the plaintiffs, and in alternative, if the Court does not found possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, the delivery of possession of the suit land. 5. The pleadings made by the plaintiffs in the plaint that, the plaintiffs and defendants are relatives. The suit land was obtained by the plaintiffs in family partition from the lifetime of their ancestors and they are in possession of the same. Presently, the suit land is recorded in the name of defendants in the revenue records, but prior to recording of their names, the names of the plaintiffs and their ancestors were recorded. By the illegal mutation of the names of the defendants, they are claiming title over the suit land. On 01.07.1979, the defendant No.1 Santram had filed an application under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Tahsildar, Dabhra, which was rejected, and thereafter, he filed an application under Section 145 of CRPC before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dabhra, which was also rejected, however, the criminal revision filed by defendant No.1 was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The plaintiffs had challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur, which was disposed of with the direction to the plaintiffs to get their title decided by the competent civil court, and thereafter, the present civil suit has 4 been filed. It is also pleaded in the plaint that, in the record of right of the land for the year 1929-30, the name of ancestors of the plaintiffs Kondo, Dashrath, Gangaram have been recorded. The plaintiffs are their ancestors have not alienated the suit land to the defendants in any manner and after death of their ancestors the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. The defendants are neither the family members of the plaintiffs nor having any title over the suit land and they have no right to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. 6. The defendants No. 1 to 3 have contested the claim of the plaintiffs and filed their written statement, denied the plaint averments with the pleading that, the suit land khasra No. 406/3, area 2.52 acres was recorded in the name of Bandan Singh, who was the father of defendant No.1. After his death, the names of defendants No. 1 to 3 have been recorded in the revenue records and they are the title holder and in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs had filed an application on 01.07.1997 before the Tahsildar, Dabhra for delivery of possession of the suit land and when the defendants came to know about the collusion of the plaintiffs with the revenue authorities, they filed an application under Section 145 of CRPC before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dabhra, and during pendency of the said proceeding, the plaintiffs have got mutated their names in the revenue records on 22.07.1998. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dabhra has passed its order on 22.06.1999, which was challenged by the defendant No.1 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, which was allowed on 29.01.2000 and ordered for delivery of 5 possession to the defendant No.1, however till date the order of Additional Sessions Judge has not been complied with. It is also pleaded in the written statement that, the order dated 29.01.2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti was challenged by the plaintiffs before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur, which was dismissed on 05.07.2000. The suit land is owned and possessed by the defendants and the plaintiffs have no right or title over the same, and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues:- “(1) गण पर अप प स स टर उपरत च आ र! !" ? (2) गण # $% &'षण प अ)*र+ !" ? (3) गण इस आश # &'षण ./त र अ)*र+ !" .तगण गण 0 # पर 'ई !$त2प र3 ? (4) पर गण 0 .ए पर गण 0 .त 5. 1 स 3 स प अ)*र+ !" ? (5) गण र$ अ6 7 3 अप अ8* 9प स र ) !8 ? (6) स!त ए : ?” 7. In support of the claim, the plaintiffs have examined Chamru/PW-1, Bhogsingh/PW-2, Bhogdev Singh/PW-3 and they relied upon the document (exhibit P-1), which is the khasra of the year 1930-31. The defendants have examined Santram/DW-1 and relied upon the document (exhibit D-1), which is the order dated 29.01.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, exhibit D-2 is the record of right of the year 1954-55, exhibit D-3 is B-1 Kishtbandi of the year 2002 to 2004, exhibit D-4 is khasra panchshala from the year 1981- 82 to to 1984-85, exhibit D-5 is khasra panchshala from the year 6 1994-95 to 1997-98, exhibit D-6 is khasra panchshala from the year 1999-2000 to 2002-03. 8. After considering the entire evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that, after 1930- 31, to prove their title, the plaintiffs have not filed any document, though the plaintiffs have pleaded that in their family partition, they obtained the suit land and are in possession, however, in cross- examination of PW-1/Chamru, he stated that he did not know the khasra number of the suit land and the plaintiffs could not prove the partition of the family property, and thus, the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the suit land. The learned trial Court has also considered that the documents filed by the defendants with respect to the revenue entries could not be rebutted by the plaintiffs. 9. The First Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court has held that, from the document (exhibit P-1), it find proved that the suit land was belongs to the ancestors of the plaintiffs, but how the said khasra No. 406/3 (suit land, mutated in the name of Bandan Singh, there is no any deed of transfer of title. Although, the names of defendants are recorded in the revenue records from 1981-82 to 2002-03, but there is no any deed of title. The learned First Appellant Court has also considered that the revenue entries does not confer title over the parties, in whose name, the land was recorded and from the evidence of DW-1/Santram, the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land is proved. Learned First Appellate Court has also considered that the order passed under Section 145 of CRPC is only 7 with respect to the possession over the suit land two months prior to the date of dispossession and the same does not confer any title upon the parties. Learned First Appellate Court has further held that the defendants have failed to prove their source of title over the suit land, and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, which is under challenge in the present second appeal. The present second appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law, which is set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title by producing the sufficient documentary evidence in consonance of their pleadings that they obtained the suit land in their family partition. The name of Bandan Singh, who is the father of the defendants have ben recorded in the revenue records since 1954-55 and and the defendants are in possession of the suit land since then. Merely on the basis of the document (exhibit P-1), which is the mutation entry in the name of ancestors of the plaintiffs, it cannot be said that, the plaintiffs are title and possession holder of the suit land, whereas from the entries in the revenue records of 1954-55, the title and possession of the defendants have been proved. Although, the defendants could not prove their source of title, however, their long possession and mutation entry, itself are sufficient to hold that the defendants are title and possession holder of the suit land, yet the learned First Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, which is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 8 11. Despite service of notice upon the respondents, no one appears on their behalf to pursue their case. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that, present is a dispute between the private parties with respect to the title over the suit land and the State is a formal party. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 14. The claim of the parties are based on the entries of their name in the revenue records. The claim of the plaintiffs are that the suit land was recorded in the name of their ancestors and they have filed the document (exhibit P-1), which is the khasra entry of the year 1930- 31, whereas the defendants’ claim are that the suit land is recorded in the name of their father Bandan Singh since 1954-55 and in support of their claim, they have filed the document (exhibit D-2), which is the record of right of 1954-55. in the document (exhibit P-1) filed by the plaintiffs, the names of Kondi, Dashrath, Kumri and Gangaram were recorded and in the backside of the said document (exhibit P-1), the family tree was prepared by the Patwari and they shown their genealogy. From the document (exhibit D-2), it transpires that, it is recorded in the name of Bandhan Singh and the suit land khasra No. 406/3, area 2.52 acres was also recorded in his name. The plaintiffs’ case are that they inherited the properties from their ancestors and obtained it in family partition, whereas the defendants’ claim are that, since the suit land was recorded in the name of their father in the year 1954-55, they are title holder of the property and also in possession of the same, however the defendants could not 9 explain the source of their title or source of mutation of the name of Bandhan Singh in the record (exhibit D-2). By the preponderance of probability, it goes to show that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were title and possession holder of the suit land, but the same was recorded subsequently in the name of Bandhan Singh in the year 1954-55 for which there is no any valid deed of transfer of the title in their favour. 15. It is the settled proposition of law that, the entries of the names in the revenue records does not confer any title upon the parties and it is only for the fiscal purposes to keep the record updated. 16. In the matter of “Balwant Singh and others v. Daulat Singh (Death), through L.Rs. and others” AIR 1997 SC 2719, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- “22. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that Mr. Sanyal is right in his contention that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a result of mutation No. 1311 dated 19.7.54, Durga Devi lost her title from that date and possession also was given to the persons in whose favour mutation was effected. In Smt. Sawarni's case, Pattanaik J., speaking for the Bench has clearly held as follows: “Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment.”” 10 17. In another case of “H. Lakshamaiah Reddy and others v. L. Venkatesh Reddy” 2015 (14) SCC 784, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 8 that:- “8. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, 1st defendant did not relinquish or release his right in respect of the half share in the suit property at any point of time and that is also not the case pleaded by the plaintiff. The assumption on the part of the High Court that as a result of the mutation, the first defendant divested himself of the title and possession of half share in suit property is wrong. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. The observations of this Court in Balwant Singh's case (supra) are relevant and are extracted below: "21. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that Mr Sanyal is right in his contention that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954, Durga Devi lost her title from that date and possession also was given to the persons in whose favour mutation was effected. In Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223, Pattanaik, J., speaking for the Bench has clearly held as follows: (SCC p. 227, para 7) "7. ... Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment." 11 22. Applying the above legal position, we hold that the widow had not divested herself of the title in the suit property as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954. The assumption on the part of the courts below that as a result of the mutation, the widow divested herself of the title and possession was wrong. If that be so, legally, she was in possession on the date of coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act and she, as a full owner, had every right to deal with the suit properties in any manner she desired." In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in concluding that the 1st defendant by his conduct had acquiesced and divested himself of title of his half share in suit property and the said erroneous conclusion is liable to be set aside.” 18. In the matter of “Municipal Corporation, Gwalior v. Puran Singh @ Puran Chand and others” 2015 (5) SCC 725, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 28 that:- “28. Mutation entries do not confer title. In Smt. Sawarni v. Smt.Inder Kaur & others, 1996 (6) SCC 223, this Court held: “7…….Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment.” 19. Similar view have been expressed in series of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. “Suraj Bhan and others v. Financial Commissioner and others”, 2007 (6) SCC 186, “Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (Dead) Through Legal Representative v. 12 Arthur Import and Export Company and others” 2019 (3) SCC 191, “Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar”, 2019 (10) SCC 259, “Ajit Kaur @ Surjit Kaur v. Darshan Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others”, 2019 (13) SCC 70. 20. The plaintiffs have stated in his evidence that, the suit land was obtained by them in family partition and they are in possession of the same. With the collusion of the revenue authorities, the defendants got their names mutated in the revenue records and raising dispute with the plaintiffs. The application filed by the defendants under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code was rejected by the Tahsildar, Dabhra and thereafter, he filed an application under Section 145 of CRPC, which was also rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dabhra, but the criminal revision was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge. In the criminal revision filed against the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dabhra, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the criminal revision with liberty to get the title of the plaintiffs decided by the civil court and then the civil suit has been filed. In cross-examination, the PW-1 has stated that the defendants are in possession of only 45 dismils and the remaining land is in possession of them. The entries of the names of their ancestors in the revenue records (exhibit P-1) could not be rebutted by the defendants in his cross-examination. PW-2 and PW-3 are the witnesses of the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. PW- 3/Bhogdev Singh has clearly stated in his cross-examination also that the plaintiff Chamru is cultivating the land and he is in possession of the same. The defendant Santram has also admitted in para 5 of his cross-examination, that he did not know that how 13 many paddy crops he received from cultivation in the last year. The suit land is cultivated by the plaintiffs. In the entire evidence of the defendants, they could not establish the source of their title, as to how the suit land is recorded in the name of their father Bandhan Singh. 21. In view of the evidence produced by the parties and in the light of aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the preposition of law that mutation entries does not confer title upon the parties, the judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court is found to be correct and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Accordingly, the substantial question of law answered in favour of the plaintiffs that the First Appellate Court is justified in recording finding of title and possession in favour of the plaintiffs. 22. Consequently, the second appeal filed by the defendants is hereby dismissed. 23. Parties shall bear their own costs. A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved