MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIORversusPURAN SINGH ALIAS PURAN CHAND & ORS.

                    [2014] 8 S.C.R. 115


        MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR                         A
                          v.
     PURAN SINGH ALIAS PURAN CHAND & ORS.
           (Civil Appeal No. 8605 of 2013)
                       JULY 02, 2014
                                                                8
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
                 A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

      Land Laws - Suit for declaration of title over a land and
permanent injunction by the respondents against the C
Municipal Corporation - Dismissal of, by the trial court holding
that the land belonged to the Municipal Corporation -
However, the High Court set aside the order passed by the
trial court on basis of the revenue entries - Justification of -
Held: Order passed by the High Court not justified - Mutation D
entries do not confer title - High Court erred in reversing the
well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trial court
by relying upon Khasaras entries even without properly
appreciating that Khasara entries do not convey title of the
suit property as the same is only relevant for the purposes of E
paying land revenue and it has nothing to do with ownership
-Since the ancestors of the respondents did not belong to one
family, but three different families belonged to three different
castes, claim of joint ownership and joint possession of the
land could not be accepted - Also, the High Court failed to
                                                                 F
appreciate that there was no document of title/ownership on
record placed by the respondents and there were no
pleadings in this regard as such no finding of title or
ownership can be given in favour of respondents.

    The respondents filed suit against the appellant-           G
Municipal Corporation seeking dec:aration that land was
owned and possessed by them and permanent
injunction against the appellant on the ground that

                             115                                H
    116       SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A Municipal authorities tried to interfere with their
  possession. The trial court held that the respondents are
  not the owners of the disputed land and the disputed
  land is the property within the continued ownership and
  possession and management of the Municipality. In the
B First Appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment'
  passed by the trial court. Hence, the instant appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1.1. It is settled that for joint possession and
C ownership over any property, firstly the respondents are
   required to plead the same and the said fact should be
   reflected in the plaint itself There is a concept of joint
   family amongst the Hindus but that is required to be
  'pleaded and proved. As the ancestors of the respondents
D do not belong to one family, but three different family
   having three different castes, the joint possession of the
   respondents cannot be accepted. The High Court failed
   to notice the said fact while allowing the appeal of the
   respondents. The High Court gravely erred in law as well
E as on facts in connecting RM with the respondents even
   though they have utterly failed to prove any connection
   with him and the pleadings are lacking regarding their
   particulars and even their names do not appear in Ext.
   P.11. [Para 18, 17] [124-D-F]
F     1.2. 'CK' widow of 'SB'-PW-1 and 'PS'-PW-2 stated
  that they are joint owners and are in joint possession
  based on revenue records. The names of 'M', 'G' and 'SB'
  were shown. However, the name of·ancestors of plaintiff
  No.2, 'SB' is not recorded, but the name of 'SB' himself
G is recorded therein. In the original plaint, it was not
  pleaded as to how 'SB' along with 'M' and 'G' were in joint
  possession over the land in dispute. In this background,
  the trial court rightly held that the respondentg failed to
  give necessary details of their origin and ownership
H
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR v. PURAN SINGH ALIAS     117
                   PURANCHAND

·rights. The High Court failed to appreciate that there was A
 no document of title/ownership on record placed by the
 respondents and there )Nere no pleadings in this regard
 as such no finding of title or ownership can be given in
 favour of respondents. The evidence of PW-1 and other
 evidence on record including map were enclosed in the B
 plaint. Nothing was shown to suggest that 'SB' was in
·actual possession of the land in the plaint or in the map
 and no pleading as the existence of a- pataur, toilet and
 pond (Haudi) in the suit land was made. Therefore, the
 trial court was correct in holding that the plaintiff-'SB' was c
 not in -possession of land. The trial court on appreciation
  of the entries and its genuineness which. is to be
  presumed under the provisions of Section 117 of the
  Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, came to a definite
  c.onclusion that the entries were made with different ink 0
  and hand-writing and the compliance of the order by any .
  competent officer is not mentioned in the Khasara. In this
  regard when cross-examined, 'GR'PW-3 made certain
  statements in the cross-examination which raised doubt
  about the entries in some of the khasara placed by the
                                                                E
  plaintiff. Errors and omissions have been also found in
 .the Khasata entries produced by the respondents. Hencer
  the trial court doubted the correctness of those khasaras.
  [Para 19, 20, 21, 25, 26] [124-G-H; 125-A-D; 126-C-F]

      1.3. The said fact was not dealt with by the High        F
 Court in proper perspective. Merely on the basis of
 Khasara of the year Samvat 1992, 1996, 2003 declaration
 was given in favour of the plaintiffs. The High Court also
 noticed the Khasara of the year Samvat 2004 to 2006,
 2010 to 2014, 2013 to 2017, 2035 to 2038. In the Khasara      G
 of the years Samvat 2035 ·to 2038, the nature of the land
 was mentioned as Nazul Abadi. In such exhibit the
 Municipality has been mentioned in column No.3. On the
 basis of said Khasaras, the Single Judge decided the title
                                                               H
    118       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A in favour of the appellant-Municipal Corporation. [Para 27,
  28] [126-G-H; 127-A-C]

       1.4. Mutation entries do not confer title. The High
  Court committed a grave and manifest error of law in
  reversing the well reasoned judgn:ient and decree passed
8
  by the trial court by simply placing reliance upon
  Khasaras entries even without properly appreciating the
  settled law that Khasara entries do not convey title of the
  suit property as the same is only relevant for the
C purposes of paying land revenue and it has nothing to
  do with ownership. The judgment and decree passed by
  the Single Judge in the First Appeal is set aside and the
  judgment and decree passed by the trial court is upheld.
  [Para 29, 30, 31] [127-C-E, G]

D       . Smt. Sawarni v. Smt. lnder Kaur & others 1996 ( 5 )
     Suppl. SCR 165: 1996 (6) SCC 223; Jamshed N. Guzdar
    vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2005 (1 ) SCR 223 :(2005)
    2 sec 591 - referred to.

                         Case Law Reference :
E
      2005 (1 ) SCR 223              Referred to     Para 9
      1996 ( 5) Suppl. SCR 165 Referred to           Para 29
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F 8605 of 2013.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.1998 in Civil
    Firsf Appeal No. 1 of 1995 of the High Court of Madhya
    Pradesh Bench at Gwalior.
G       T.N. Singh, Vikas K. Singh, Rajshree Singh for the
    Appellant.                                   ·

          Dhruv Mehta, Prerna Mehta for the Respondents.

H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR v. PURAN SINGH ALIAS          119
                  PURAN Cl-WJD
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                      A

     SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This
appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15th
April, 1998 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Civil First Appeal No.1 of 1995.      B
By the impugned judgment and decree the High Court allowed
the appeal, preferred by plaintiffs-respondents, set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed
the suit of plaintiffs-respondents.

    2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:                C

      The respondents were, plaintiffs and the appellant-
Municipal Corporation, Gwalior was a defendant in the original
suit. The Original Civil Suit No.44-N1985 was filed by plaintiff- ·
respondents against the defendant- the Municipal Corporation, D
Gwalior seeking declaration that land bearing Original Survey
No.486/19 (old) (New Survey No.619) measuring 1 Bigha is
owned and possessed by them. They also sought for permanent
injunction against the defendant on the ground that Municipal
authorities tried to interfere with their possession by dismantling E
the fencing standing on their land.

      3. The case of the plaintiffs was that their ancestors were
the owners of the suit land. One Ram Nath was the original
tenure-holder (Mool Krishak) and thereafter they became joint
Bhumiswami. They claimed to be in possession on the ground          F
that they constructed fencing, Hauda (pond) and Latrine (toilet)
on the suit land.

     4. By way of an amendment of paragraph 2 of the plaint
the plaintiffs had shown their pedigree.                            G

      5. Defendant - Municipal Corporation filed a written
statement, denied the allegations arid asserted that the suit land
is an open piece of land belonging to the Corporation and is
in its possession. It is reserved for developing park and is used
as a oarkino place and a siQn Board to tbis effect is Q@ced .at . H
    120         SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A   the spot and the fencing by wire too has been done by
    Municipal Corporation. It was alleged that the plaintiffs
    manipulated Khasara entries by committing fraud to include
    their names.                                         ·

         6. The Trial Court on the ·basis of the pleadings of the
8
    parties framed the following issues :-

          "1.   . Whether the plaintiffs are Bhumiswamis of the
                  disputed land?

c         2.     Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is
                 insufficient?

          3.     Whether the defendants can get Rs. 30001- as
                 compensatory cost?

D          4.    Whether the disputed land belongs to the
                 defendant No.2 being Nazul land?

           5.    Whether the defendant can get Rs. 5, 0001- as
                 compensatory cost?
E          6.    (a) Whether the disputed land belongs to the
                 Nazul department?

                      (b) If so, whether the land being open belongs
                 to the Municipal Corporation and the sameis not
F                owned by the plaintiffs?

           7.    Reliefs and costs."

        7. On~ hearing the counsel for the parties and on
  considering the entire evidence, by judgment and decree dated
G 29th September, 1994, the Trial Court dismissed the suit and
  held as follows:-

          "Issues 1,4 6(a} and 6(b}:

          In absence of notice under Section 401 of the M. P.
H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR v. PURAN SINGH ALIAS           121
  PURAN CHAND [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

    Municipality Act, 1956 the suit is not maintainable. The          A
    plaintiffs are not the owners of the disputed land and the
    disputed land is the property within the continued
    ownership and possession and management of the
    Municipality.
                                                                      B
    Issue No.2:

    The Court fee paid is sufficient.

    Issue No.3 and 5:

    Even though the suit of the plaintiffs failed but the
                                                                      c
    defendants are not entitled to get the special damages.

    Issue No.7:

    On the basis of above findings the suit of the plaintiffs         D
    for all the said reliefs is liable to be dismissed with costs."

    8. Against the Trial Court's decision, the plaintiffs-
respondents preferred a Civil First Appeal No. 1 of 1995 in the
High .Court. After hearing the parties, the High Court by
impugned judgment allowed the appeal and set aside the                E
iudgment passed by the Trial' Court with the following
observation:

    "38. That is the position in this case as well, when the
    respondents-defendants did not produce property register          F
    to show that this property was ever recorded as property
    of the Municipal Corporation. At one stage it was
    recorded as Nazul land belonging to the State when the
    area had not come within the municipal limits. When the
    area came within the municipal limits it was mentioned            G
    to be Behatnam (under management) of the Municipal
    Corporation. But the possession and title of the plaintiffs
    has been recorded throughout even thereafter and to
    have established Abadi over this land, and therefore, the
    defendants-respondents could not object to the title and          H
    122        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A         possession of the plaintiffs and the suit for declaration of
          title and injunction qught to have been decreed."

       9. Aggrieved appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal
  under Clause 10 of the J._etters Patent Appeal Rules before the
  Division Bench of High. Court. The LPA No. 150 of 1998 was
8
  admitted and the order of stay was passed by the High Court.
  Subsequently, in the light of a Constitution Bench decision in
  Jamshed N. Guzdar vs. State of Maharashtra & Or~.• (2005)
  2 SCC 591, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 17th
C August, 2005 as not maintainable.

         10. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant made the
    following submissions:
                                                                         I
          (a) The High Court committed a grave and manifest erron
D         of law in reversing the well reasoned judgment and
          decree passed by the Trial Court.

          (b) The High Court has.failed to consider that as there is
          no priot service of notice before institution of the suit
          either under Section BO of C.P. C. or under Section 401
E         of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, therefore,
          suit was not maintainable and as such it was rightly
          dismissed by the Trial Court.

          (c) The High Court has gravely erred in decreeing the suit
F         without properly considering the oral evidence led by the
          plaintiffs and on the contrary the plaintiffs witnesses
          admitted in their evidence that in Khasaras the
          Municipality is recorded as owner and even in some
          Khasaras the plaintiffs are recorded as tresspassers.
G        11. On the other hand, according to learned counsel for
    the plaintiffs-respondents, the First Appellate Court rightly
    decreed the suit as predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs were
    recorded to be in possession of the land.

H         12. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and
 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR v. PURAN SINGH ALIAS 123
   PURAN CHAND [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

circumstances of the case, evidence on record and the                A
submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, we find
                                                     •
ourselves in complete agreement with the submission made on
behalf of the defendant-appellant and the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court.
                                                                     B
    13. The plaintiffs-respondents claimed ownership, title and
possession over the land. They are supposed to plead the fact
and prove their case by placing evidence. The plaintiffs ha\(e
shown their possession in the capacity of "Pukhta Maurusi
Kashtakar" and that the land was meant for agriculture               C
purposes.

      14. Further the case of the plaintiffs was that there was no
partition between them and the land continued to be joint family
property ("Shamil Shareek"). The plaintiffs have given the detail
of their predecessor-in-title·                                       D

           "Table of Pu ran Singh, Plaintiff No.1:

                  Chhutti Ram, widow Manko
                               -!,
                            Mishrilal                                E

                  Puran Singh (adopted son)

           Table of Shyam Babu, Plaintiff No.2:

                 Reoti Prasad, widow Rajwati                         F
                                -!,
               Bhagwati alias Bl'lagwati Prasad
                                -!,
                         Shyam Babu"

                     Table of Har Narain;                            G

                         Mangal Singh
                                -!,
                           Gopi Ram
                               -!,
                            Harnarain                                H
    124      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A        15. Referring to the tables of the predecessor-of-interest,
    the Trial Court doubted the joint-ownership of the family and
    rejected the claim of the plaintiffs in view of the following facts~

       16. Plaintiff no. 1, Puran Chand belongs to Shiva Hare
B Caste whereas plaintiff No. 2, Sham B~bu, is a 'Kayastha'
  (Shrivastava}. I larinarain is a Thakur. The plaintiff has not made
  clear how they claim joint ownership and joint possession of
  the land if they belong to three different castes. Neither any
  pleadings were made nor any evidence was placed by the
C plaintiff to show how the land in dispute came under thei~
  ownership and when they have taken possession of the land.·

       17. The High Court gravely erred in law as well as on facts
  in connecting Ram Nath with the plaintiffs-respondents even
  though they have utterly failed to prove any connection with him
D and the pleadings are lacking regarding their particulars and
  even their names do not appear in Ext.P.11.
                                                  -
         18. It is settled that for joint possession and ownership over
    any property, firstly the plaintiffs are required to plead the same
E   and the said fact should be reflected in the plaint itself. There
    is a concept of joint family amongst the Hindus but that is
    required to be pleaded and proved. As the ancestors of. the
    plaintiffs do not belong to one family, but three different family
    having three different castes, the joint possession of the plaintiff
    cannot be accepted. The High Court failed to notice the
F   aforesaid fact while allowing the appeal of the plaintiffs.

        19. Smt. Chandra Kala widow of Shyam Babu (PW-1) and
  Puran Singh (PW-2) stated that they are joint owners and are
  in joint possession based on·revenue records. The names of
G Mishrilal, Gopilal and Shyam Babu were shown. However, the
  name of ancestors of Plaintiff No.2, Shyam Babu is not
  recorded, but the name of Shyam Babu himself is ~ecorded
  therein. In the original plaint, it was not pleaded as to how
  Shyam Babu along with Mishri Lal and Gopiram were in joint
H possession over the land in dispute. In this background, we hold
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR v. PURAN SINGH ALIAS 125
    PURAN CHAND [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]

that the Trial Court rightly held that the plaintiffs failed to give   A
necessary details of their origin and ownership rights.

      20. The High Court has failed to appreciate that there was
 no document of title/ownership on record placed by the
 plaintiffs-respondents and there are no pleadings in this regard      B
 as such no finding of title or ownership can be given in favour
_of plaintiff-respondents.

      21. The evidence of Chander Kala PW-1 and other
 evidence on record including map were enclosed in the plaint.
 Nothing was shown to suggest that Shyam Babu was in actual            C
 possession of the land in the plaint or in the map and no
 pleading as the existence of a pataur, toilet and pond (Haudi)
 in the suit land was made. Therefore, the Trial Court was
 correct in holding that the plaintiff- Shyam Babu was not in
 possession of land.                                                   D

     22. The Khasara entry of Samvat 1966 is exhibit P-11. The
 name of the owner of Khasara No.486 (Vasarash Sadar),
 Rakam Tehsil Khewat 1 is recorded whereas Kashtakar
 Dakhilkar in column No.7 (Basrah Sadar) Ram Chander s/o               E
 Kashi Ram resident of Deh Dakhilkar is mentioned. Further in
 column No.8 the following entry is given as Skikmi Kashtakar
 and Muddat Kashta:-           ·

      "Manko widow Khushi Ram and Arjun-
                                                                       F
      Rajawati widow of Reoti Prasad Kayastha,

      Mangat Singh and Ram Prasad."

     In the further columns the vegetables, crop and makka,
 channa etc. is mentioned.                                             G

       23. In second old Khasara entry Exhibit P-10 for Samvat
 1992 with respect to Khasara No.486/19 in the column No.5
 for the name of the owner 'Municipality No.1' is mentioned and
 further Warelal Gopi Ram Mauru- Mangal Singh- Bhagwati s/o            H
    126      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A   Reoti Prasad Ka.Sa.Deh.Mu.Maurusi is mentioned and in
    column No.20 'Kisam Abadi' is mentioned. In column No.9
    Chita Lagani has been shown.

         24. According to plaintiffs, the old Account No.486/19 of
    the land is in dispute., and therefore, in this Khasara entry this
8
    land is reflected as Bila Lagani Abadi under the ownership of.
    Municipality.

       25. The Trial Court on appreciation of the entries and its
  genuineness which is to be presumed under the provisions of
C Section 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code,
  came to a definite conclusion that the entries were made with
  different ink and hand-writing and the compliance of the order
  by any competent officer is not mentioned in the Khasara. In
  this regard when cross-examined, Gita Ram Verma (PW-3),
D Abhilekha Pal of Rajasava Abhilekhagar Gwalior made certain
  statements at paragraph 5,6, and 7 of cross-examination which
  raised doubt about the entries in some of the khasara placed
  by the plaintiff.

       26. Gita Ram Verma-(PW-3) in her statement stated the
E record of samvat 1977 to samvat ·1992 in the 'Abhilekha Gar'
  (record room) of Director Land Record. The plaintiffs could not
  correspond how they could get Exhibit P-10 and P-11 which
  were available in the record room and could not prove the
  correctness of those exhibits. Errors and omissions have been
F also found in the Khasara entries produced by the plaintiffs.
  Hence the Trial Court doubted the correctness of those
  khasaras ..

       27. The aforesaid fact has not been dealt with by the High
G Court in proper perspective. Merely on the basis of Khasara
  of the year Samvat 1992 Ex.P/10, Khasara of the year Samvat
  1996 Ex.P/11, Khasara of the year Samvat 2003 Ex.P/2
  declaration has been given in favour of the plaintiffs. The High
  Court also noticed the Khasara of the year Samvat 2004 Ex.Pl
H 3, Samvat 2005 Ex.P/4 and Samvat 2006 Ex.P/5, and then
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR v. PURAN SINGH ALIAS          12 7
  PURAN CHAND [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA J.]
Khasara of the years Samvat 2010 to 2014 Ex.P/6, Khasara             A
of the years Sam vat 2013 to 2017 Ex. P/7 and Khasara of the
years Samvat 2035 to 2038 Ex.P/8.

     28. In the Khasara of the years Samvat 2035 to 2038 Ex.Pl
8 the nature of the land was mentioned as Nazul Abadi. In such       B
exhibit the Municipality has been mentioned in column No.3. On
the basis of aforesaid Khasaras, the learned Single Judge
decided the title in favour of the appellant-Municipal
Corporation.

     29. Mutation entries do not confer title. In Smt. Sawarn; v.    c
Smt. lnder Kaur & others, 1996 (6) SCC 223, this Court held :

     "7... .... Mutation of a properly in the revenue record does
     not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive
     value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour      D
     mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.
     The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error
     in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of lnder
     Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous
     conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment ....... "           i;:

     30. The High Court committed a grave and manifest error
of law in reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court by simply placing reliance upon
Khasaras entries even without properly appreciating the settled
law that Khasara entries do not convey title of the suit property    F
as the same is only relevant for the purposes of paying land.
revenue'and it has nothing to do with ownership.

      31. For th.e reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in            G
Civil First Appeal No.1 of 1995 and confirm the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court. The appeal is allowed. No
costs.

Nidhi Jain                                         Appeal allowed.
                                                                     H