SHRI KASTURCHAND AND ANR. versus SHRI HARBILASH AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 293 · Decided: 14-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SHRI KASTURCHAND AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SHRI HARBILASH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 : 
S.4(2)-Khud-kasht land-Proprietors of land filing suit for recovery 
of possession stating that they were recorded in Samvat years 2006, 2007 C 
and 2008 in possession before the date of vesting i.e. 2.10.1951 (Samvat year 
2008)-In 2008 defendant got their names struck off and entered his name 
with connivance of Patwari-Defendant claiming to be in possession as heir 
of sub-tenant and on the date of vesting he was in possession-Plaintiffs 
claim dismissed by all the courts below-Held, for purposes of s.4(2) what D 
is relevant and material is the entries in khasra maintained by Revenue 
department for the period earlier to date of vesting-Names of plaintiffs 
having been recorded as Khud-kasht possessors in Samvat years 2006 and 
2007, they were entitled to recover possession of the land-There is nothing 
to show that subsequent correction was made u/s 50 of Land Revenue Act-
Finding recorded to the contrary by courts below being vitiated are not E 
binding on Supreme Court-Plaintiffs' suit decreed-Madhya Bharat Land 
Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950-S.50. 
Mehrabsing v. Nareshsing, [1970) 3 SCR 18, Meharban Singh v. 
Bhagwant Singh, AIR (1980) SC 696, relied on. 
· Deorao Jadhav v. Ramchandra & Ors., M.P.L.J. 414, approved. 
Ramkhilawandhar & Ors. v. Gajodharprasad (dead) by 'Lrs. & Ors., 
[1985) 2 sec 58, distinguished. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5392 of G 
1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.3.87 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in S.A. No. 385 of 1973. 
Shiv Dayal Shrivastava, Sushi! K. Jain, A.P. Dhamija, A. Mishra, Ms. H 
293 
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Anjali Doshi and Indra Makwana for the Appellants. 
R.B. Mehrotra, Rajesh and Prakash Srivastava for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High 
c 
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in Second Appeal No .. 
385of1973 dated March 13, 1987. The resolution of the controversy in this 
appeal depends upon the true interpretation of Section 4(2) of Madhya Bharat 
Zamindari Abolition Act, Samvat 2008 (Act 13 of 1951), referred to in this 
judgment as the Abolition Act. 
The appellants are proprietors of the land in dispute within the meaning 
of Section 2(a) of the Abolition Act. The lands in dispute are Survey Nos. 
2742, 3080 and 3105 of village Mehgaon, District Bhind (erstwhile Gwalior 
State) (for short the Suit Land). The appellants filed the Suit out of which the 
D present appeal arises, for recovery of possession of the suit land against the 
original defendant (son of Gayadeen) on .the allegation that in Samvat 2008 
Gayadeen dispossessed them and therefore they are entitled to recover 
possession after ejectment of the respondents. They say that in Samvat year 
2005 one Balku was cultivating the Suit land. After that he abandoned it and 
the appellants cultivated the suit land (khud-kasht) during the Samvat years 
E 2006, 2007 and 2008 and the same is so recorded in the annual village papers 
(Khasra). They alleged that in the Khasra of Sam vat year 2008 their name was 
struck off and name of one Gayadeen was got written with the connivance 
of the Patwari. They claimed to have become permanent tenant and from 
October 10, 1959, Bhoomiswami. 
F 
The claim of the appellants was contested by the respondents by 
pleading that Balku had never abandoned the suit land. In Sam vat year 2006 
he gave the possession of the .land to Gayadeen who remained in possession 
till his death and thereafter the defendant was cultivating the land. The 
respondents claimed to be the heirs of the sub-tenant of Balku, a gair maurusi 
G Kashtkar. On the date of vesting of the Abolition Act he was in possession 
and, therefore, he was entitled to all the rights under the Abolition Act. The 
appellants' right, if any, was to continue in possession, if they were in 
possession on that date but as they were out of possession, they cannot seek 
recovery of-possession from them. 
H 
On these pleading the parties went on trial. The learned trial Judge 
.111
., 
KASTURCHAND v. HARBILASH 
295. 
dismissed the Suit of the appellants. The appeal filed before the learned A 
District Judge was also dismissed. The appellants prosecuted the case in the 
Se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.