MADHO SINGH AND ORS. versus MONI SINGH (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 960 · Decided: 30-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MADHO SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
MONI SINGH (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 30, 2004 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
MP. Land Revenue Code, 1959: 
Ss. 111 and 257-Grazing land-Settled by Board of Revenue in 
c favour of an individual as groves-Villagers not party to the proceedings 
filed suit in representative capacity before Civil Court for declaration of 
title and permanent injunction-Plea that suit was barred bys. 257-Held, 
suit was maintainable and was the only remedy available to plaintiffS-
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 1, Rule 8. 
D 
In a dispute between the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 
and the revenue authorities, certain land was settled finally by the 
Board of Revenue in favour of the former as groves. When the villagers 
came to know of this, some of them filed a suit before the Civil Court 
E in a representative capacity for declaration of title and permanent 
injunction stating that the suit land was grazing land for the village 
people and the respondents-defendants bad no title thereto. The suit 
was decreed by the trial court but was dismissed by the first appellate 
court. The second appeal of the plantiffs was dism_issed by the High 
F 
Court holding that when a judicial order was passed by the Board of 
Revenue under the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, 
the suit was barred by s. 257 of the Code. The High Court also held 
that the proceedings bad been initiated under the M.B. Zamindari 
Abolition Act, and were set at rest by a final order passed by the Board 
of Revenue and as such the suit before the civil court was not 
G maintainable. 
In the appeal field by the plaintiffs it was contended that in the 
revenue records the suit land was shown as grazing land on which the 
villagers had right to graze their cattle, therefore, the suit for declaration 
H and permanent injunction was filed in a competent court since such 
960 
I 
"( 
, 
.. 
""
.( 
( 
I~
> 
MADHO SINGH v. MONI SINGH (THAKKER, J.] 
961 
a question could only be dedded by a civil court, and in view of s.111 A 
of the Code, bar of s.257 would not apply • 
. Allowing the appeal, the Court 
9.ELD : In the proceedings initiated by the predecessor-in- B 
interest of the respondents against the revenue authorities, the appellants 
were not made parties. Since the land was grazing land and not grove, 
it affected the rights of the appellants as also the village people. They, 
therefore, approached the civil court by instituting the suit for 
declaration of title and permanent injunction as also for possession. C 
The suit was maintainable and was the only remedy available to the 
plaintiffs. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the villagers had 
right to graze cattle. The High Court could not have held the suit to 
be barred by Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code nor could 
it have recorded a finding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs in 
representative capacity was not maintainable. [964-E-H) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5555 of 
2004. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.2002 of the Madhya E 
Pradesh High Court in S.A. No. 302 of 1982. 
B.S. Banthia, for the Appellants. 
Ashok K. Srivastava, Satish K. Agnihotri (NP) for the Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THAKKER, J. : Leave granted. 
The appellants herein have challenged the order passed by the High G 
Court ofM.P. (Indore Bench) on 23rd August, 2002 in Second Appeal No. 
302 of 1982. By the said order, the High Court confirmed the order passed 
by the Second Additional Judge to the Code of District Judge, Shajapur 
dated 25th February, 1982, by which it set aside the Judgment and decree 
dated 19th October 1974 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Shajapur. 
H 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The case of the appellants is that at village Kanardipura Tehsil 
Shajapur, there was a land bearing Khasra Nos. 294/1, 317, 319, 320 and 
321. It was in possession of one Kalu Singh S/o. Bheru Singh. A dispute 
arose between Kalu Singh on the one hand and Revenue Authorities on 
the other about the nature of the land. The case of Kalu Singh was that 
B his late father Bheru Singh was the owner of the land and was in possession 
thereof. His name was recorded as proprietor. After coming into force of 
the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 the land remained grove 
and hence exempted from the provisions of the Act. Kalu Singh, therefore, 
could possess the la

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