BABU LAL SHARMA versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 07-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 348 
BABU LAL SHARMA 
V. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2434 of 2006) 
JULY 7, 2009 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
DR.B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Suit - Suit seeking declaration of title, ownership and 
C possession - Plea that suit land entered in revenue records 
as Government Land, actually belonged to him - Revenue 
courts rejecting application for rectification of records - Suit 
dismissed - In first appeal suit decreed - Second appeal 
deciding against plaintiff - On appeal, held: Possession and 
o title of plaintiff not established - Revenue records show that 
the suit properly was all along a Government land. 
Appellant filed a suit seeking a decree of declaration 
of title, ownership and possession of suit land, 
E 
measuring 1.84 acres. The case of the plaintiff was that 
a piece of the suit land measuring 0.53 decimal was sold 
to 'C' by his father in the year 1945. It came to the 
knowledge of the appellant in 1984 that the disputed land 
was entered in the revenue records of 1953-54 as 
Government land. He filed application for rectification of 
F 
the entry which was rejected by revenue courts. In a 
litigation regarding the land sold, i.e. 0.53 decimal of the 
disputed land, the vendee's title was declared thereon 
upto Supreme Court. In view of that decision, the 
appellant contended, that the remaining suit land could 
G not have been entered into revenue records as 
Government land. Trial court dismissed the suit. First 
appellate court decreed the suit. In second appeal, High 
Court set aside the decree. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
348 
1' 
•• 
BABU LAL SHARMA v. STATE OF M.P. 
349 
.; ,., 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. 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. The revenue records B 
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 c 
by way of adverse possession was made, 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 
D 
even have the possession of the suit land. Furthermore, 
there is no document to prove his title. He has not been 
able to prove and establish as to how his father came to 
own the said property which was a Government land. The 
revenue courts have also given a finding against the 
E 
appellant-plaintiff. [Paras 14 and 15] [354-B-F] 
2. Reliance placed on the judgment of the various 
f 
_; 
courts including the Supreme Court in respect of the land 
measuring 0.53 decimal which was allegedly sold by 
father of the appellant-plaintiff to the vendee is totally F 
misplaced. The said land was transferred way back in the 
year 1945. The name of the appellant-plaintiff is not 
shown in any capacity in the revenue records but clearly 
the name of the alleged vendee is shown to be entered 
in respect of the land namely 0.53 acres. However, the G 
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 
connected with that of the subject matter of the H 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
proceedings measuring 0.53 acres of land. It is also 
~ ' 
found from the record that the case pertaining to 0.53 
acres of land was fought out between different parties. 
[Paras 14 and 15] [354-A-C; 355-8-D] 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2434 of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2005 of the 
,; . 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal 
No. 372 of 2002. 
c 
T.P. Mishra and R.K. Pandey (for Kuldip Singh) for the 
Appellants. 
S.K. Dubey and Vikrant Singh (for B.S. Banthia) for the 
D 
Respondents. 
r., 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. By this judgment 
and order we propose to dispose of this appeal which has been 
E 
filed by the appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment 
and order passed in the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.