(Died), Sampat, Through Legal Heirs Vs Somaru

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:33691

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH Court OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

SA No. 433 of 1994

¶7

1 - (Died), Sampat, Through Legal Heirs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 0911-2023. 1.1 - Madan Singh S/o Late Sampat Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.). 1.2 - Tularam S/o Late Sampat Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 1.3 - Mukundram S/o Late Kamal Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 1.4 - Biro S/o Late Kamal Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 1.5 - Manohar S/o Late Kamal Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶8

1.6 - Dhiro D/o Late Kamal Singh, W/o Munna Thakur Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Chandiguda, P.S. Badangi, Tahsil Tokapal, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶9

1.7 - Sukdai D/o Late Kamal Singh, W/o Narhari Thakur Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bhantigura, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶10

... Appellant(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Somaru S/o Sukhram Dhakad Aged About 49 Years Cultivator, Resident Of Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar, (C.G.)

¶13

2 - (Died) Ransagar, Through Legal Heir As Per Honble Court Order Dated 0911-2023.

¶14

2.1 - (A) Smt. Kamla W/o Late Ransagar Caste - Dhakad, R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶15

3 - (Died) Kamlochan, Through Legal Heir As Per Honble Court Order Dated

¶16

2

¶17

09-11-2023.

¶18

3.1 - (A) Smt. Gomti Wd/o Late Kamlochan Caste - Dhakad, R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 4 - (Died), Sondhar, Through Legal Heir As Per Honble Court Order Dated 0911-2023. 4.1 - (A) Smt. Koushula W/o Late Sondhar Caste - Dhakad, R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 4.2 - (B) Chainsingh S/o Late Sondhar Caste - Dhakad, R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 4.3 - (C) Jitendra S/o Late Sondhar Caste - Dhakad, R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 4.4 - (D) Sukdev S/o Late Sondhar Caste - Dhakad, R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 5 - (Died), Lakhmu, Through Legal Heir As Per Honble Court Order Dated 0911-2023. 5.1 - (A) Smt. Menwati W/o Late Lakhmu Caste - Dhakad, R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 5.2 - (B) Limsar S/o Late Lakhmu Caste - Dhakad, R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 5.3 - (C) Hitendra S/o Late Lakhmu Caste - Dhakad, R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 5.4 - (D) Suresh S/o Late Lakhmu Caste - Dhakad, R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 6 - (Died), Ramnath, Through Legal Heir As Per Honble Court Order Dated 0911-2023. 6.1 - (A) Kurso W/o Late Ramnath Caste - Dhakad, R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 6.2 - (B) Birbal S/o Late Ramnath Caste - Dhakad, R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 6.3 - (C) Bhursu S/o Late Ramnath Caste - Dhakad, R/o Village Balputi, Tahsil

¶19

3

¶20

Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶21

7 - (Deleted), Bajir As Per Honble Court Order Dated 09-11-2023.

¶22

8 - The State Of Madhya Pradesh Nill

¶23

... Respondent(s)

¶24

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) 1 to 6.3 : Mr. Lalit Bhushan Paswan, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶26

17.07.2025

¶27

1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bastar, place Jagdalpur in civil appeal No. 11A/1993 dated 06.05.1994, whereby the appeal preferred by defendants No. 1 to 7 was allowed and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was setaside.

¶28

1. This appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

¶29

“a) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant is the sole owner of the disputed property and is entitled to relief of the possession?

¶30

b) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the defendant has acquired Bhumiswami' rights by adverse possession?

¶31

c) Whether Thekadari system prevailing in the erstwhile Bastar State is recognized under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and if "yes", then what will be its effect?

¶32

d) Whether the Courts below were justified in relying upon the report submitted by Tehsildar (Ex. P/1)

¶33

4

¶34

without examining the case or any secondary evidence made in this behalf?”

¶35

1. The original plaintiff, namely Sampat, had filed a civil suit for declaration and possession against defendants No. 1 to 7 before the learned Court of the IInd Civil Judge Class-II, Jagdalpur.

¶36

1. It was pleaded that the suit property mentioned in schedule-A, area 45.83 acres, fell in the share of Sampat, whereas the land admeasuring 18.4 acres fell in the share of Bajir. It is further pleaded that an order was passed by the revenue Administrator on 02.04.1946 and the partition was given legal authenticity. It is also pleaded that the brothers of Bajir, namely Sukhram, Son Singh and Ramnath, were ousted by Bajir, and they approached Sampat/plaintiff. Late Sampat provided them with permissive possession of some part of the land out of 45.83 acres mentioned in Schedule B. Those persons moved an application for mutation before the Tehsildar sometime in the year 1983, and immediately thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit on 25.09.1989.

¶37

1. The defendants filed a written statement and denied the plaint averments. They stated that there was no partition by metes and bounds. They also pleaded that the suit property remained joint property and the plaintiff, as well as the defendants, had equal rights over it. It is also pleaded that an application for mutation was moved as the defendants had the right over the suit property situated at the Village Balputi.

¶38

1. An application was moved before the Tehsildar for partition on 02.12.1985, and it was allowed vide order dated 12.07.1988. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs, and the order passed by the Tehsildar was set aside vide order dated 26.12.1988. Thereafter, the Civil suit was filed.

¶39

1. The learned trial Court framed issues. Parties led their evidence, and the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.04.1993 decreed

¶40

5

¶41

the suit. The defendants preferred a first appeal, and it was allowed vide judgment dated 06.05.1994, and against the said judgment, this second appeal has been preferred.

¶42

1. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant, would argue that the late Sampat was the sole owner of the suit property. He would contend that Arjun S/o Sampat was ‘Thekedar’ according to the Revenue Manual, Bastar State.

¶43

1. Mr. Sourabh Sharma would further submit that Arjun had two wives, first, namely Lakhmi, who died in the year 1971 and the second wife, namely Manmati, who died in the year 1956. The entire property situated at village Dabguda fell in the share of Bajir/defendant No.7, and the land situated at village Balputi fell in the share of Sampat (the original plaintiff). He also submits that the order of partition was passed by the revenue administrator on 02.04.1946 as per Annexure P/1. He would further contend that the order passed by the revenue administrator was never challenged by the defendants before any forum, and thus it attained finality. He also contends that the revenue administrator passed the order according to the provisions of revenue circular Nos. 1 & 12 of the revenue manual of Bastar State. He would argue that the Thekedari system was prevailing in the erstwhile Bastar State. The trial Court passed a well-reasoned judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff after evaluating the entire material, including Exhibit P/1 and the oral evidence of the parties. It is further argued that the first appellate Court reversed the findings.

¶44

10) He would also argue that the learned first appellate Court held that the exhibited document Ex.P-1, an order of partition, passed by the revenue administrator, actually is an order of mutation and it does not confer any right in favour of the parties. The first appellate Court also held that despite the order of mutation, the plaintiffs and the defendants have equal rights over the entire suit property.

¶45

6

¶46

11) Mr. Sharma has brought notice of this Court to revenue circular No. 12, which deals with the rights of the Thekedars to mutation. He would state that where a Thekedar died leaving behind number of villages, the mutation would be in the name of the eldest son, but where it was quite clear that the eldest son alone was unable to devote the time and resources necessary for the proper administration of the villages, the interest of the villagers would be best served by dividing up the villages among the sons. He further stated that pursuant to the revenue manual circular No. 12 of the Bastar State, the property was divided into the other brothers of Bajir/defendant No.7 and the sons of Sampat. He prays to set aside the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court and restore the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.

¶47

12) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by Mr. Sharma and submit that revenue circular No. 12 deals with the right of the Thekedars to the mutation only. It is submitted that the provisions of the revenue circular deal with the orders for mutation only, and it does not confer any right on the Thekedars. He would further submit that it is stated in circular No. 12 that Thekedars have no proprietary rights in their villages, such as Malguzars in C.P. have, and unless the responsibilities of Thekedars under the Wajib-ul-arz are fully enforced, the State would lose all the benefits that might accrue to it under the Thekedari system. It is also submitted that in circular No. 12, the son of the Thekedar would ordinarily be permitted to succeed, provided there were no strong reasons against this course. Such strong reasons would be (I) bad management of the village, (ii) failure to improve the village, (iii) flagrant breaches of the Wajib-ul-arz. He would refer to clause 3 of circular number 12, which deals with the definition of the joint mutation. It means the mutation of one village in more than one name. Clause 4 of circular No.12 deals with several mutations. He would

¶48

7

¶49

contend that the appellate Court has considered this aspect and decided this issue and set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court.

¶50

13) It is also contended by Mr. Paswan that under the Land Revenue Code, 1959, the Thekedari system prevailing in the erstwhile Bastar State is not recognized. He would further contend that the document exhibit P- 1 was not proved by the appellant by leading primary or secondary evidence.

¶51

14) With regard to the substantial question of adverse possession, Mr. Paswan would submit that the defendants in their written statements have not claimed any right by law of prescription.

¶52

15) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶53

16) The original plaintiff, Sampat, filed a suit for declaration and possession against defendants No. 1 to 7. Admittedly, Arjun was a Thekedar in the Bastar State. Arjun died in the year 1945; Arjun was managing 18.4 acres of land situated at village Dabguda and 45 acres of land at village Balputi. He left behind two widows, namely Lakhami and Manmati. From Manmati, there were four sons, namely Bajir, Sukhram, Son Singh and Ramnath, whereas from Manmati, there was only one son, namely Sampat (original plaintiff). A Report was submitted before the revenue administrator sometime in the year 1946. The said authority, pursuant to revenue circular No.12 of the Revenue Manual, Bastar State, passed an order of mutation on 02.04.1946. A total of 45 acres of land situated at village Balputi was mutated in the name of Sampat (original plaintiff), and 18.4 acres of land situated at village Dabguda was recorded in the name of Bajir/defendant No.7. After the death of Sampat, his legal representatives were brought on record. It appears that Bajir/defendant No.7 ousted his three brothers, namely Sukhram, Son Singh and Ramnath, from the village Dabguda. They approached Sampat; Sampat provided them shelter and also provided them with certain land for

¶54

8

¶55

their survival. The defendants moved an application for partition before the Tehsildar, and the same was allowed.

¶56

17) The learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the original plaintiff, holding that there was a partition between the issues of Lakhami and Manmati in the year 1945. It is also held that 18.04 acres of land situated at village Dabguda fell in the share of Bajir and 45.13 acres of land fell in the share of Sampat.

¶57

18) It is further held that the plaintiff, Sampat, has the right over 45.13 acres of land, whereas Bajir/defendant No.7 and his brothers have the right over 18.4 acres of land, and they are the exclusive owners of their share.

¶58

19) The learned appellate Court reversed most of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The appellate Court held that the entire suit property was mutated in the name of late Sampat and Bajir, and there was no partition by metes and bounds, and it was also held that, according to the document exhibit P-1, the original plaintiff, Sampat and Bajir/defendant No.7, were not given the exclusive right of ownership. Thus, the learned first appellate Court set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit.

¶59

20) With regard to the substantial question of law No. A, “whether the plaintiff/appellants are the sole owners of the disputed property and they are entitled for relief of possession”, in this regard it would be advantageous to go through revenue circular No. 12, which deals with the right of the Thekedars to mutation.

¶60

21) In the Revenue Manual of Bastar State, the Thekedar and their legal representatives were granted the right to manage the villages and the property and no exclusive right of ownership was granted under circular No. 12. Though the parties were in possession of the lands mentioned in schedules A and B, but they were never granted ownership right over those properties. Therefore, the substantial

¶61

9

¶62

question of law No.A is decided in negative against the appellants/plaintiffs.

¶63

22) With regard to the substantial question No. B, it is stated by Mr. Paswan that, in the written statement, no plea has been taken with regard to the adverse possession; therefore, there is no need to decide this issue.

¶64

23) Now the substantial question of law No. C, from a perusal of the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, 1959, it is crystal clear that the Thekedari system, which was prevailing in the erstwhile Bastar State, has not been recognised under the code, 1959. Further, according to revenue circular No.12, the property could have been mutated in the name of Thekedars and their legal representatives. Therefore, this substantial question of law is also decided against the appellants/plaintiffs.

¶65

24) Now coming to the substantial question of law No. D, the document exhibit-P/1, which is an order of mutation passed by the Revenue Administrator according to the provisions of Revenue Circular No.12 of the Revenue Manual of Bastar State. The certified copy was produced before the trial Court, and the same is exhibited as exhibit P/1. The contents of that document have been relied upon by the plaintiffs as well as by the defendants, and there was no dispute with regard to the order which was passed; therefore, there was no occasion either for the plaintiffs or the defendants to prove the contents of that document by leading secondary evidence.

¶66

25) Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶67

26) A decree be drawn accordingly.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶70

Nadim

(Died), Sampat, Through Legal Heirs v. Somaru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(Died), Sampat, Through Legal Heirs v. Somaru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rekha Agarwal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ku.alka Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jalandhar Pradhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Rohit Kumar Sahu Vs Union Of India

Dilip Kumar Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narayan Lal Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh