1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7444 OF 2009
RAJNARAYAN SHARMA ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
SIRNAM SHARMA AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
1. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment
dated 12.12.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Bench at Indore in Second Appeal No. 189/1999, setting aside
the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Gohad in
C.F.A No. 65/98, consequently confirming the judgment and
decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Gohad in Civil Suit
No. 8-A/87. In effect, the High Court, by the impugned
2
judgment, has restored the judgment of the trial Court,
decreeing the suit, filed by the plaintiffs. Order of review dated
04.12.2006 passed by the High Court has also been challenged
in this appeal.
2. The plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein) filed
Civil Suit No. 8-A/87 for declaration of title and injunction, and
for cancellation of the sale deed dated 16.7.1984 (exhibit D-2),
executed by Bansi(Banshi) in favour of defendant
no.1-Raghunath, as well as, sale deed dated 21.9.1989(exhibit
D-1), executed by defendant 1-Raghunath in favour of
Rajnarayan Sharma (appellant herein) in respect of the land
bearing survey(new) numbers 123, 322, 426, 863, 1375 and
1413, admeasuring 7 Bighas 17 Biswas, situated in the village
Chandhara, Tehsil Gohad, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’).
The plaintiffs claimed that they were in possession of
the suit land as sub-lessee of Bansi(Banshi) after paying
Rs.5,000/- to Bansi(Banshi) in Samvat 2030 and since then
they continued to be in possession of the suit land; they
3
acquired rights of occupancy tenants; Bansi(Banshi)/holder of
the suit land could not have executed the sale deed in favour of
the first defendant, firstly, because Bansi(Banshi) was not in
possession of the suit property, and that the plaintiffs were in
continued possession of the property, and secondly, because
Bansi(Banshi) was mentally ill.
The case of the defendants is, that Raghunath
(original defendant no.1) purchased the suit land from
Bansi(Banshi) through a registered sale deed (exhibit D-2) dated
16.7.1984, and in turn, Raghunath sold the suit property to
Rajnarayan Sharma (appellant herein) through registered sale
deed (exhibit D-1) dated 21.09.1989.
3. The trial Court, after framing the issues, recording
the evidence and hearing the parties, decreed the suit filed by
the plaintiffs. As mentioned supra, the first appellate Court
reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, concluding that the
plaintiffs have neither proved their ownership nor possession
over the suit land. The High Court, while allowing the appeal
4
filed by the plaintiffs in part, concluded that the plaintiffs have
got no right, title or interest whatsoever over the suit land, but
are in possession of the property and therefore they cannot be
dispossessed, except in accordance with law. The plaintiffs
have not assailed the impugned judgment of the High Court
holding that they do not have any right, title or interest
whatsoever over the suit land and therefore the said finding of
the High Court has attained finality and is binding on the
parties.
4. The only question to be decided in this appeal is with
regard to the possession over the suit property. The first
appellate Court, as well as, the High Court have categorically
recorded a finding on due consideration of the entire material
on the record in proper perspective, that there is nothing on
record to show that the plaintiffs were sub-lessees of
Bansi(Banshi) at any point of time. The alleged payment of
Rs.5,000/- by the plaintiffs to Bansi(Banshi) is also not proved,
inasmuch as, there is no documentary evidence to support
such case of the plaintiffs. Neither lease deed executed
5
between the plaintiffs and Bansi(Banshi), nor any rent receipt is
forthcoming on the record. Even the alleged rate of rent was
not fixed between the plaintiffs and Bansi(Banshi). Therefore,
though the High Court was justified in concluding that the
plaintiffs have not proved any right, title or interest over the
suit land, the High Court has erred in concluding that the
plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land since last few years
and they cannot be dispossessed, except in accordance with
law.
5. The plaintiffs solely rely upon khasra entries filed by
the defendants before the first appellate Court as an additional
evidence, which came to be accepted for the years Samvat
2036-2040 and 2041-2045, i.e., 1974-1979 and 1980-1985, to
show that they are in possession of the suit property. As
mentioned supra, the plaintiffs claimed that they were in
possession of the suit land from Samvat 2030, but there is
nothing on record to show that they entered into the
possession of the suit land in Samvat 2030. It is no doubt
true, that the names of the plaintiffs were forthcoming in the
6
certified copies of khasra entries for Samvat 2036-2040 and
2041-2045 in the column of particulars, however, the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Gohad has passed an order cancelling
the names of the plaintiffs in respect of those years, inasmuch
as, the khasra entries in the revenue record were found to be
incorrect. Except those khasra entries, no other documentary
material is forthcoming to prove the possession of the plaintiffs
over the suit property at any point of time.
6. Per contra, the sale deed dated 16.7.1984 (exhibit
D-2), executed by Bansi(Banshi) in favour of Raghunath
(original first defendant), and the sale deed dated 21.9.1989
(exhibit D-1), executed by the first defendant in favour of the
appellant herein are not questioned by anybody including the
plaintiffs till date. The sale deed dated 16.7.1984 (exhibit D-2)
depicts that the possession of the suit land was handed over by
Bansi(Banshi) to Raghunath, i.e., the predecessor-in-interest of
respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein. On receiving consideration of
Rs.15,000/-, the possession of the suit land was handed over to
Raghunath on the spot. On 13.5.1985, by the order of
7
Sub-Divisional Officer, Gohad, the revenue records were
mutated on the application of original vendor Bansi(Banshi).
Subsequently thereafter the names of defendant no.1-
Raghunath on the basis of sale deed dated 16.7.1984 (exhibit
D-2) and subsequent purchaser Rajnarayan Sharma (the
appellant herein) on the basis of sale deed dated 21.9.1989
(exhibit D-1) were mutated in the revenue records. Even after
the second sale deed dated 21.9.1989, the name of Rajnarayan
Sharma was entered into the revenue records as in possession
over the suit land and he is cultivating the land in question.
7. Having regard to the position narrated above, it is
clear that there is no documentary evidence to show that the
plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and their case
is only based on oral evidence, which is controverted by the
defendants in their oral evidence, in our considered opinion,
the High Court was not justified in holding that the plaintiffs
are in possession of the property. The High Court has fully
relied on the revenue entries of Samvat 2036-2040 and
2041-2045 to conclude that the plaintiffs are in possession of
8
the property. While, doing so the High Court had erred in
overlooking the important factor that such entries were
cancelled by the superior revenue officer, as mentioned supra.
In view of the same the High Court fell into error in coming to
wrong conclusion. Hence, the said part of the impugned
judgment needs to be modified.
8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed, the finding
recorded by the High Court that the plaintiffs are in possession
of the suit property and they cannot be dispossessed except in
accordance with law stands set aside, and the suit No. 8-A/87
is dismissed in toto. No order as to costs.
…...………………………………….J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
……..……………………………..……J.
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 12 , 2017.
9
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.10 SECTION IV-A
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).7444/2009
RAJNARAYAN SHARMA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SIRNAM SHARMA AND OTHERS Respondent(s)
Date : 12-09-2017 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Niraj Sharma,AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
pronounced the Non-Reportable judgment of the Bench
comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and His
Lordship.
The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs, in terms
of the signed Non-Reportable judgment.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sarita Purohit) (Tapan Kumar Chakraborty)
Court Master Branch Officer
(Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7444 OF 2009
RAJNARAYAN SHARMA ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
SIRNAM SHARMA AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
1. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment
dated 12.12.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Bench at Indore in Second Appeal No. 189/1999, setting aside
the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Gohad in
C.F.A No. 65/98, consequently confirming the judgment and
decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Gohad in Civil Suit
No. 8-A/87. In effect, the High Court, by the impugned
2
judgment, has restored the judgment of the trial Court,
decreeing the suit, filed by the plaintiffs. Order of review dated
04.12.2006 passed by the High Court has also been challenged
in this appeal.
2. The plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein) filed
Civil Suit No. 8-A/87 for declaration of title and injunction, and
for cancellation of the sale deed dated 16.7.1984 (exhibit D-2),
executed by Bansi(Banshi) in favour of defendant
no.1-Raghunath, as well as, sale deed dated 21.9.1989(exhibit
D-1), executed by defendant 1-Raghunath in favour of
Rajnarayan Sharma (appellant herein) in respect of the land
bearing survey(new) numbers 123, 322, 426, 863, 1375 and
1413, admeasuring 7 Bighas 17 Biswas, situated in the village
Chandhara, Tehsil Gohad, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’).
The plaintiffs claimed that they were in possession of
the suit land as sub-lessee of Bansi(Banshi) after paying
Rs.5,000/- to Bansi(Banshi) in Samvat 2030 and since then
they continued to be in possession of the suit land; they
3
acquired rights of occupancy tenants; Bansi(Banshi)/holder of
the suit land could not have executed the sale deed in favour of
the first defendant, firstly, because Bansi(Banshi) was not in
possession of the suit property, and that the plaintiffs were in
continued possession of the property, and secondly, because
Bansi(Banshi) was mentally ill.
The case of the defendants is, that Raghunath
(original defendant no.1) purchased the suit land from
Bansi(Banshi) through a registered sale deed (exhibit D-2) dated
16.7.1984, and in turn, Raghunath sold the suit property to
Rajnarayan Sharma (appellant herein) through registered sale
deed (exhibit D-1) dated 21.09.1989.
3. The trial Court, after framing the issues, recording
the evidence and hearing the parties, decreed the suit filed by
the plaintiffs. As mentioned supra, the first appellate Court
reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, concluding that the
plaintiffs have neither proved their ownership nor possession
over the suit land. The High Court, while allowing the appeal
4
filed by the plaintiffs in part, concluded that the plaintiffs have
got no right, title or interest whatsoever over the suit land, but
are in possession of the property and therefore they cannot be
dispossessed, except in accordance with law. The plaintiffs
have not assailed the impugned judgment of the High Court
holding that they do not have any right, title or interest
whatsoever over the suit land and therefore the said finding of
the High Court has attained finality and is binding on the
parties.
4. The only question to be decided in this appeal is with
regard to the possession over the suit property. The first
appellate Court, as well as, the High Court have categorically
recorded a finding on due consideration of the entire material
on the record in proper perspective, that there is nothing on
record to show that the plaintiffs were sub-lessees of
Bansi(Banshi) at any point of time. The alleged payment of
Rs.5,000/- by the plaintiffs to Bansi(Banshi) is also not proved,
inasmuch as, there is no documentary evidence to support
such case of the plaintiffs. Neither lease deed executed
5
between the plaintiffs and Bansi(Banshi), nor any rent receipt is
forthcoming on the record. Even the alleged rate of rent was
not fixed between the plaintiffs and Bansi(Banshi). Therefore,
though the High Court was justified in concluding that the
plaintiffs have not proved any right, title or interest over the
suit land, the High Court has erred in concluding that the
plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land since last few years
and they cannot be dispossessed, except in accordance with
law.
5. The plaintiffs solely rely upon khasra entries filed by
the defendants before the first appellate Court as an additional
evidence, which came to be accepted for the years Samvat
2036-2040 and 2041-2045, i.e., 1974-1979 and 1980-1985, to
show that they are in possession of the suit property. As
mentioned supra, the plaintiffs claimed that they were in
possession of the suit land from Samvat 2030, but there is
nothing on record to show that they entered into the
possession of the suit land in Samvat 2030. It is no doubt
true, that the names of the plaintiffs were forthcoming in the
6
certified copies of khasra entries for Samvat 2036-2040 and
2041-2045 in the column of particulars, however, the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Gohad has passed an order cancelling
the names of the plaintiffs in respect of those years, inasmuch
as, the khasra entries in the revenue record were found to be
incorrect. Except those khasra entries, no other documentary
material is forthcoming to prove the possession of the plaintiffs
over the suit property at any point of time.
6. Per contra, the sale deed dated 16.7.1984 (exhibit
D-2), executed by Bansi(Banshi) in favour of Raghunath
(original first defendant), and the sale deed dated 21.9.1989
(exhibit D-1), executed by the first defendant in favour of the
appellant herein are not questioned by anybody including the
plaintiffs till date. The sale deed dated 16.7.1984 (exhibit D-2)
depicts that the possession of the suit land was handed over by
Bansi(Banshi) to Raghunath, i.e., the predecessor-in-interest of
respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein. On receiving consideration of
Rs.15,000/-, the possession of the suit land was handed over to
Raghunath on the spot. On 13.5.1985, by the order of
7
Sub-Divisional Officer, Gohad, the revenue records were
mutated on the application of original vendor Bansi(Banshi).
Subsequently thereafter the names of defendant no.1-
Raghunath on the basis of sale deed dated 16.7.1984 (exhibit
D-2) and subsequent purchaser Rajnarayan Sharma (the
appellant herein) on the basis of sale deed dated 21.9.1989
(exhibit D-1) were mutated in the revenue records. Even after
the second sale deed dated 21.9.1989, the name of Rajnarayan
Sharma was entered into the revenue records as in possession
over the suit land and he is cultivating the land in question.
7. Having regard to the position narrated above, it is
clear that there is no documentary evidence to show that the
plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and their case
is only based on oral evidence, which is controverted by the
defendants in their oral evidence, in our considered opinion,
the High Court was not justified in holding that the plaintiffs
are in possession of the property. The High Court has fully
relied on the revenue entries of Samvat 2036-2040 and
2041-2045 to conclude that the plaintiffs are in possession of
8
the property. While, doing so the High Court had erred in
overlooking the important factor that such entries were
cancelled by the superior revenue officer, as mentioned supra.
In view of the same the High Court fell into error in coming to
wrong conclusion. Hence, the said part of the impugned
judgment needs to be modified.
8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed, the finding
recorded by the High Court that the plaintiffs are in possession
of the suit property and they cannot be dispossessed except in
accordance with law stands set aside, and the suit No. 8-A/87
is dismissed in toto. No order as to costs.
…...………………………………….J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
……..……………………………..……J.
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 12 , 2017.
9
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.10 SECTION IV-A
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).7444/2009
RAJNARAYAN SHARMA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SIRNAM SHARMA AND OTHERS Respondent(s)
Date : 12-09-2017 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Niraj Sharma,AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
pronounced the Non-Reportable judgment of the Bench
comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and His
Lordship.
The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs, in terms
of the signed Non-Reportable judgment.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sarita Purohit) (Tapan Kumar Chakraborty)
Court Master Branch Officer
(Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
