Dismissed¶¶70

Smt. Rahmat Bee (Dead) Kamruddin (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. v. Harshveer Singh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC10 Dec 2025SA/76/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; second appeal (SA) dismissed; landlord-tenant eviction, Shanichari Bazaar, Durg; State as necessary party; Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1951; Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, Samvat 2008 (Act 28 of 1951), Sections 3, 4 and 6; permanent patta dated 30.10.1976; nazul rent and Form-H patta; admission of tenancy in written statement and witness depositions; dominus litis; Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733 relied on; Santosh Chaturvedi v. Kailash Chandra (2020) 16 SCC 672 and Gopi alias Goverdhannath (2022) 19 SCC 204 referred; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the judgment and decree of the Courts below stand upheld and a decree is directed to be drawn accordingly. ¶¶70

Smt. Rahmat Bee (Dead) Kamruddin (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. Vs Harshveer Singh and Ors. — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the judgment and decree of the Courts below stand upheld and a decree is directed to be drawn accordingly.

¶¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the two Courts below committed an error of law in not appreciating that, after the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1951 came into force, the disputed premises vested in the State Government and the State was a necessary party.

¶¶39

Court's answer

The substantial question of law is decided against the appellants: in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State would not be a necessary party.

¶¶69

Ratio / Principle

There being admission by the defendants that they are tenants and that the suit property is owned by Dr. Mahavir Singh Gupta, the appeal is devoid of merit.

¶¶69

Key takeaways

The plaintiff is dominus litis and in command to implead the respondent against whom relief is sought; in this suit for eviction of the defendants as tenants, the State was not required to be impleaded.ratio¶¶65
The defendants' own plea in para-2-B of the written statement that patta dated 30.10.1976 of the disputed land was obtained by the plaintiff fortified the plaintiff's pleading.ratio¶¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal SA No. 76 of 2011 (High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge; CAV judgment; NAFR) dismissed. Sole substantial question of law: whether the two Courts below erred in not appreciating that, after the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1951 came into force, the disputed premises vested in the State Government and the State was a necessary party. Answered against the defendants-appellants: their written statement and deposition evidence admitted the tenancy and the ownership of Dr. Mahavir Singh Gupta; the land had been allotted to the plaintiff on permanent patta by the Collector's order dated 30.10.1976 (allotment proceedings closed 15.02.1989); the plaintiff, being dominus litis, could confine the suit to the persons against whom eviction was sought, so the State was not a necessary party — Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 733 (Order 1 Rule 10 CPC) relied on. Concurrent findings of the trial Court (Civil Suit No.93-A/2002, decree dated 09.10.2003) and the First Appellate Court (Civil Appeal No.39-A/2003) upheld; decree to be drawn accordingly.

-1-

2025:CGHC:60458

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Judgment Reserved on 22.09.2025

¶6

Judgment Delivered on 11.12.2025

¶7

Judgment Uploaded on 12.12.2025

¶8

SA No. 76 of 2011

¶9

(1) A-- Smt. Rahmat Bee (Dead)

¶10

B- Kamruddin (Died) Through LRs:

¶11

B (1) Widow Smt. Sahida Bee W/o Kamruddin Aged About 65 Years R/o Gandhinagar Diprapara, Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶12

B (2) - Nasaruddin S/o Late Kamruddin Aged About 50 Years R/o Gandhinagar Diprapara, Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶13

B (3) - Mohd. Yakud, S/o Late Kamruddin, Aged About 47 Years R/o Rotarinagar, Tatiband, Raipur, Tah. And Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

B (4) - Mohd. Anwar Hussain S/o Late Kamrudin, Aged About 40 Years R/o Gandhi Nagar Diprapara, Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶15

B (5)- Smt. Jahira Begam, W/o Late Mohd. Shahid, Aged About 38 Years R/o Juna Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶16

B (6)- Mohd. Rafic, S/o Late Kamruddih, Aged About 30 Years R/o Gandhinagar, Diprapara, Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶17

C- Abdul Rehman S/o Late Gulam Quadar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Shanichari Bazar Road In Front Of Bank Of Maharashtra, Bhoipara, Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶18

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.12.12 15:11:26 +0530

¶19

D- Suberati S/o Late Gulam Quadar Aged About 37 Years R/o Shanichari Bazar Road In Front Of Bank Of Maharashtra, Bhoipara,

¶20

-2-

¶21

Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶22

E- Abdul Gani S/o Late Gulam Quadar Aged About 32 Years R/o Shanichari Bazar Road In Front Of Bank Of Maharashtra, Bhoipara, Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶23

F- Mohammad Ismail, S/o Late Gulam Quadar Aged About 30 Years R/o Shanichari Bazar Road In Front Of Bank Of Maharashtra, Bhoipara, Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶24

G- Mohammad Yusuf, S/o Late Gulam Quadar Aged About 28 Years R/o Shanichari Bazar Road In Front Of Bank Of Maharashtra, Bhoipara, Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶25

2 - Noor Mohammad S/o Late Gulam Quadar Aged About 35 Years R/o Shanichari Bazar Road In Front Of Bank Of Maharashtra Bhoipara, Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶26

... Appellant (s)

¶27

versus

¶28

1- Harshveer Singh aged about 39 years S/o Late Dr. Mahaveer Singh Gupta

¶29

2 - Yashveer Singh S/o Late Dr. Mahaveer Singh Gupta Aged About 35 Years R/o Shivpara, Near Chandi Mandir, Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶30

3 - Jayveer Singh S/o Late Dr. Mahaveer Singh Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o Shivpara, Near Chandi Mandir, Durg, Tah. And Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶31

... Respondent(s)

¶32

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. M.L. Saket, Advocate

¶33

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶34

CAV Judgment

¶35

This appeal is filed by appellants/defendants challenging legality and sustainability of impugned judgment and decree passed by learned

¶36

-3-

¶37

First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.39-A/2003 whereby learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.93-A/2002 dated 09.10.2003.

¶38

This appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law:-

¶39

“ Whether the two Courts below have committed an error of law in not appreciating the fact that after coming into force the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1951, the disputed premises vested with the State Govt. and the State would have been a necessary party ? ”

¶40

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that plaintiffs filed Civil Suit pleading therein that grandfather of plaintiffs Late Dau Gend Singh Gupta had given on rent the land situated at Shanichari Bazaar, Durg to Chandu Musalman, son of Gulam on 12.10.1923. After taking land on rent, Chandu Musalman has constructed one kaccha house and was residing there. Chandu Musalman had sublet the part of land taken by him on rent from grandfather of plaintiffs to Jalalluddin (father of defendant No.1). Balwant Singh father of original plaintiff had filed civil suit for eviction of Jalalluddin and other persons from his land which was decreed in favour of Balwant Singh, plaintiff therein, vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.1938. Judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was put to challenge by Jalalluddin (father of defendant No.1) before High Court at Nagpur, which came to be dismissed. After dismissal of appeal by High Court, Alalluddin and Jalalluddin sons of Chandu Musalman have surrendered the land

¶41

-4-

¶42

subject matter of earlier Civil Suit to the plaintiffs therein. Defendant No.1 thereafter had made request for giving the portion of land on rent which is mentioned in map enclosed along with civil suit. After obtaining the land on rent afresh, defendants have raised construction without any permission or authority, details of which are mentioned in plaint map and have encroached upon the land owned by ancestors of plaintiffs. Thereafter, the suit which is subject matter of this appeal was filed by plaintiff for eviction on the ground that said property is needed for his family and running business of hotel. After issuing notice of eviction dated 10.08.1987, defendants submitted written statement to the suit filed by plaintiff admitting the plaintiff to be Landlord and Defendants to be Tenants. However, it was further pleaded that before coming into force of Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, father of defendant No.1 has taken land for use of residence and shop. Structure standing on land was constructed by the father of defendant No.1. It was pleaded that plaintiff is not having any right to get the defendants evicted from suit land. Defendants have constructed the building over the land after expending about Rs.50,000/- and the land is of the State Govt. In another Civil Suit, plaintiff got possession of two shops and also residential accommodation. Plaintiffs are having the other property in their name in Durg.

¶43

Based on the pleadings made by respective parties, learned trial Court framed as many as seven issues for consideration. After trial of the suit upon appreciation of evidence brought on record by respective parties, decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 09.10.2003 against which First Appeal was preferred by the appellant

¶44

-5-

¶45

which also came to be dismissed by impugned judgment and decree.

¶46

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that this appeal was admitted on question of law as extracted in preceding paragraph . He contended that after coming into force of Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, all the properties of Jagirdar/Maalgujar recorded as aabadi land were vested with State Government. Ownership of land subject matter of suit was also recorded in name of State Govt. He contended that by virtue of coming into force of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, Samvat 2008 (Act 28 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as “Abolition of Jagirs Act”), plaintiff was not owner of property in dispute and, therefore, he has not having any right to seek relief of eviction. To support his contention, he referred to the provision under Sections 3 & 4 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act . His contention is that when once ownership of land has been vested with the State Government by virtue of Section 6 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act, plaintiff is not entitled for relief as sought for in the suit.

¶47

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently opposed submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that defendants in pleading of written statement have very categorically pleaded that land subject matter of suit was allotted to plaintiff pursuant to order passed by the competent authority on patta in the year 1976. Patta was not cancelled. He submits that status of ancestors of defendant No.1 as of tenant is even otherwise admitted by defendant and it is also clear from earlier proceedings of civil suit filed in the year 1937 bearing No.112-A/1937 which was decided vide

¶48

-6-

¶49

judgment and decree dated 28.11.1938 and order of eviction was passed against ancestors of defendant. Judgment and decree of eviction was upheld by High Court and, therefore, pleading of defendant/appellant that plaintiff is not having any title or right over the land is not sustainable. He also contended that learned both the Courts below upon appreciation of documentary and oral evidence brought on record has allowed the suit and appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by appellants. He contended that even if pursuant to a Abolition of Jagirs Act there was reversion of jaagir land in favour of State however fact remains that land was allotted in favour of plaintiff in the year 1976, even otherwise the status of defendant of being tenant will not change. To support his contention, he places reliance upon decision in case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 733, Santosh Chaturvedi Vs. Kailash Chandra and Anr. (2020) 16 SCC 672 and Gopi alias Goverdhannath (D) by LR and Ors. (2022) 19 SCC 204.

¶50

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record the trial Court.

¶51

Perusal of the plaint would show that plaintiffs in the pleading have specifically pleaded that suit property as mentioned therein was given on rent by Dau Gend Singh Gupta, ancestor of plaintiff, to one Chandu Musalman son of Gulam Musalman on monthly rent of Rs.8/- on 12.10.1923. On the said land, tenant Chandu Musalman has constructed one temporary hut and thereafter created sub-tenency and given it to Jalalluddin father of defendant No.1. Balwant Singh father of original plaintiff Mahavir Gupta has filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 112-

¶52

-7-

¶53

A/1937 for eviction which was decreed in favour of father of original plaintiff on 28.11.1938 . Judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was put to challenge in appeal before District Judge Raipur in Appeal No.5-A/1939 which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.02.1941. Second Appeal filed against aforementioned judgment and decree in first appeal before High Court at Nagpur also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.1943 and judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was maintained.

¶54

Defendant in para-2 of written statement in reply to para-2 of plaint has stated that land situated at Shanichari Bazaar was taken by Jalalluddin father of defendant for purpose of shop and residence on rent from exmalguzaar. Land was malguzaari land. After taking the land on rent, they have constructed house and after death of Jalalluddin, defendants are in possession and are doing business as also fulfilling their need of residence. In para-6, it is pleaded that prior to abolition of Proprietary Rights Act only land was taken on rent on which defendants have raised construction by making expenditure of Rs.50,000/- and, therefore, status of defendants is of permanent tenant. Plaintiffs are having no right to file suit for eviction and the plaintiffs are only entitled for rent and after Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, State is entitled to receive rent.

¶55

From aforementioned pleading, tenancy of Jalalluddin from original plaintiff was in fact admitted by defendants and their claim is that after coming into force of Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, plaintiff is not having any locus to file suit for eviction. In support of pleading and oral

¶56

-8-

¶57

evidence has also submitted documentary evidence which are judgment passed in Civil Appeal by the District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 5-A/1939 dated 13.02.1941 as Ex.P-1 wherein appeal filed by legal representative of of Chandu Musalman came to be dismissed. Plaintiff has also filed copy of judgment and decree passed by trial Court (Subordinate Judge) Second Class of eviction against legal representative of Chandu Musalman as Ex.P-3 . Pursuant to judgment and decree, execution proceedings were filed in which application for certifying the payment was also filed, certified copy of which is placed on record as Ex.P-6 . Suit property therein was surrendered vide Ex.P7.

¶58

Ex.P-9 is a document showing that one Gulam Kadar had replied to demand letter issued by Municipal Corporation Durg demanding property tax of Rs.3377/- in which he stated that house subject matter of demand letter is owned by Dr. Mahavir Singh Gupta, the original plaintiff and Gulam Kadar is his tenant. It is also mentioned that eviction suit is filed by Dr. Mahavir Gupta. Objection was also filed by Dr. Mahavir Gupta on issuance of property tax demand notice in favour of Jalalluddin and pleaded that Dr. Mahavir is owner and for reasons mentioned therein, property is non-taxable. Judgment of High Court in Second Appeal No.269 of 1941 dated 20.12.1943 is marked as Ex.-8 and decree as Ex.-9. Copy of order sheet in the proceedings of Nazul Officer in Case No.2004/A -20 (1) Year-1968-69 (State Vs. Ghanshyam Singh Gupta) is filed as Ex.D-15. Perusal of Ex.D-15 would show that in order-sheet dated 25.11.1987, there is mention that there is order of Collector dated 30.10.1976 for allotting land on permanent patta and

¶59

-9-

¶60

of payment of nazul rent till 1987-88 and for preparation of nazul patta and map. Further order sheet records that patta was handed over in Form- H to the holder of land for its registration and further it records that after registration of patta, it was placed for perusal and accordingly, proceeding of allotment of patta was closed on 15.02.1989.

¶61

In para-2-B of written statement to the suit, defendants have pleaded that patta dated 30.10.1976 of disputed land was obtained by the plaintiff without the knowledge of defendant and, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for decree of eviction. From this pleading it also fortifies the pleading of plaintiff.

¶62

DW 1 Noor Mohammad in para-12 of his deposition admitted that he is continuously paying the rent and has earlier also deposited the same in CCD on 12.11.1990. In para-17 of his cross-examination, he admitted that defendants are tenant of Dr. Mahavir Singh Gupta, son of Balvant Singh. In para-18 he further admitted that they have been served with a notice by Municipal Corporation for depositing property tax upon which they have submitted a memo in writing to Municipal Corporation, Durg that Dr. Mahavir Singh Gupta is owner of property and therefore property tax is to be paid by Dr. Mahavir Singh Gupta. DW2 Abdul Rahman in his evidence has admitted that Noor Mohammad is his real elder brother. DW3 Nawab Mohammad in para-12 of his crossexamination admitted that “it is correct that disputed land, even today, is of plaintiff’s ownership which was of his ancestors. This witness also admitted in para-22 that patta was allotted in favour Dr. Mahavir Singh

¶63

-10-

¶64

Gupta after filing of suit. DW 5 Gendlal Jain also stated that disputed property is of Dr. Mahavir Singh Gupta. DW7 Bhushan Lal Tamaskar has stated that the land in respect of which he has to adduce evidence, as per record, is owned by Dr. Mahavir Singh. According to Ex.D-29 possessor and pattedar is Dr. Mahavir Singh Gupta, S/o Balvant Singh.

¶65

From aforementioned evidence of witnesses as discussed above, it is appearing that defendants in their pleading and evidence has admitted the ownership of Dr. Mahavir Gupta. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant that suit was not maintainable as the State has not been impleaded as party respondent is concerned, plaintiff is dominus lities and in command to implead the respondent against whom relief is sought for. In the case at hand, suit was filed for eviction of defendant stating them to be tenant, on the ground mentioned in suit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 733 observed thus:

¶66

“16. That apart, from a plain reading of the expression used in sub-rule (2) Order 1 Rule 10 CPC “all the questions involved in the suit” it is abundantly clear that the legislature clearly meant that the controversies raised as between the parties to the litigation must be gone into only, that is to say, controversies with regard to the right which is set up and the relief claimed on one side and denied on the other and not the controversies which may arise between the plaintiffappellant and the defendants inter se or questions between the parties to the suit and a third party. In our view, therefore, the court cannot allow adjudication of collateral matters so as to convert a suit for specific performance of contract for sale into a complicated suit

¶67

-11-

¶68

for title between the plaintiff-appellant on one hand and Respondents 2 and 3 and Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 on the other. This addition, if allowed, would lead to a complicated litigation by which the trial and decision of serious questions which are totally outside the scope of the suit would have to be gone into. As the decree of a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale, if passed, cannot, at all, affect the right, title and interest of Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 in respect of the contracted property and in view of the detailed discussion made hereinearlier, Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 would not, at all, be necessary to be added in the instant suit for specific performance of the contract for sale.”

¶69

When once there is admission of defendant with respect to suit property, to be of tenant and property is owned by Dr. Mahavir Singh Gupta, in the opinion of this Court, there is no merit in this appeal. Question of law as formulated and extracted in preceding paragrpah is decided against the appellant stating that in facts and circumstances of case, State would not be a necessary party.

¶70

Appeal being sans merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶71

Let a decree be drawn accordingly.

¶72

/ Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶73

Praveen

Smt. Rahmat Bee (Dead) Kamruddin (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. v. Harshveer Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rahmat Bee (Dead) Kamruddin (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. v. Harshveer Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Indus Tower Limited, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Doman Lal Markandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Joidha Verma Vs Smt. Kamla Bai Verma and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh