LexABDUL WAHEED KHAN versus BHAWANI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
..
,-
•
H
ABDUL W AHEED KHAN
v.
BHA W ANI AND ORS.
February 21, 1966
[K. SUBBA RAO AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
Bhopal State Land Revenue Act (4 of 1932), ss. 71, 89, 93, 95 and
200(1)-Suit based on title-If barred by decision of revenue officer.
The suit of the appellant as khatedar of the land in dispute, for eject·
ment of the respondents on the ground that they were shikmi tenants, wM
decreed by the Tahsildar under s. 71 of the Bhopal Stato Land Revenue
Act 1932.
Within 12 years of the date of their dispossession the res-
poi{dents filed the suit against the appellant in the civil court, claiming
to be the khatedars and for possession. The lower courts and the High
Court held that the decision of the revenue court did not bar the juris-
diction of the civil court on the question of title to the suit land and
decreed the suit.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD: Section 200(1) of the Act, read with ss. 71, 89, 93 and 95,
does not exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit based
on title.
[ 621 E-FJ
Section 200(1) bars the civil court from entertaining a suit with res-
pect to any matter which a revenue officer is empowered by the Act to
determine. But the question of title is a matter foreign to the scope
of s. 71. The Tahsildar is no doubt empowered under s. 93 to decide on
any dispute about any entry to be made in the Record of rights showing
the persons who are holders of land, but, under s. 95, the effect of such
an entry is only to make it a presumptive piece O!f evidllllce in a collateral
proceeding such as a suit based on title.
Therefore, it is assumed that
such a suit could be filed in spite of a decision under s. 93. The suit was
within time under Art. 142, Limitation Act, 1908, and since the High
Court and tho lower courts held that the presumption raised by the entry
was rebutted by the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the res-
pondent>, tho correctness of the concurrent findings of fact could not be
canvassed in the appeal under Art. 136.
(621 B, C; 622 B, CJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1039 of
1963.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
June 24, 1959 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court iu Civil Second
Appeal No. 8 of 1957 .
N. N. Keswani and Urmilla Kapur, for the appellant.
B. Sen, C. L. Sanghi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respon-
dents.
The Judgment of the Court as delivered by:
Sobba Rao, J. This appeal by special leave raises mainly the
question whether a civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1966] 3 S.C.R.
sui~ filed by the respondents for the recovery of possession of the
A
plamt-schedulc land and mesnc profits.
~
. l)ie relevant facts may be briefly stated: The respondents,
clrummg to be the khatedars of an extent of 57.07 acres of land in
Mau.za B~anpur, Tahsil Huzur, Western District Bhopal, filed
a suit against the appellant on the ground that the latter was in
illegal possession thereof.
The appellant contested the suit mainly
S
on the ground that he was the khatedar of the said land and that he
w:is in possession thereof in that capacity. He also pleaded that
his title to the property was declared by the Tahsildar in an appli-
cation for ejectment filed by him against the respondents under the
Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 (Act No. IV of 1932), herein-
after called the Act, and that the said decision would be a bar to
C
the maintainability of the suit in a civil court.
The learned Subordinate Judge, Bhopal, held that the res-
pondents were the khatedars of the suit land and that they had
been in possession thereof in that capacity.
He held that the
suit was maintainable in a civil court.
On appeal, the Additional District Judge agreed with the
findings arrived at by the trial court.
On second appeal to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Shiv
Dayal, J., of that Court, after admitting certain notifications as
evidence, came to the same conclusion both on the question of
title and on the
question of jurisdiction. In the result he
dismissed the second appeal.
Hence the present appeal by special leave.
Mr. Keswani, learned counsel for the appellant, raised before
us a number of points; but his arguments may conveniently be
crystallized into the following points: (I) whether the decision of the
revenue court on the question of title to the suit land bars the juris-
diction of the civil court; (2) whetExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.