Alim Khan vs Latif Khan
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86831
1 SA-2513-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
SECOND APPEAL No. 2513 of 2022
CNR No.: MPHC010598362022
ALIM KHAN
Versus
LATIF KHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alim Khan - Appellant is present in person.
Shri Anil Upadhyay - Panel Lawyer for Respondent/State.
Reserved On : 22.07.2026
Pronounced On : 29.10.2026
.....................................................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has
been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant, being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby his claim for
declaration of title to the suit land bearing Khasra No. 65/1, area 4.760
hectare, and for possession of the same, has been dismissed.
2. As per the plaintiff, he is the owner of the suit land, which was
earlier held by his grandfather; Kale Khan, upon whose death and that
of his son; Karim Khan (issueless), his father; Salim Khan and
unmarried sister; Jamila Bi, he being the sole heir of Kale Khan,
became the owner of the suit land. Basodi Khan; husband of defendant
No. 1 and father of defendants no.2 to 5, is not a relative of the plaintiff.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 02-11-2026
15:15:45
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86831
2 SA-2513-2022
Kale Khan had never sold the suit land to Basodi, nor had transferred
the same to him in any manner. Basodi Khan, however, illegally got
himself recorded over the suit land, of which plaintiff acquired
knowledge only recently, hence has instituted the claim.
3. The defence of defendants was that plaintiff is not the owner of
the suit land, which was held by Basodi. Kale Khan had no right, title or
interest therein. The suit land had been allotted to Basodi Khan
pursuant to auction made by the State Government in a revenue case by
order dated 13.11.1966 for a sum of Rs.3,600/-. An order in that regard
was also passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Chhapara on 23.01.1985.
He and after him the defendants, have been in possession of the suit
land and are recorded over the same. Plaintiff, his father or grandfather
have never been so recorded and that the suit is barred by time.
4. The Courts below have dismissed plaintiff's claim by holding that
he has failed to prove his title to the suit land, whereas the defendants
have proved that the suit land was held by Basodi and after him, they
have become the owners thereof, hence plaintiff is not entitled to any
relief.
5. The plaintiff appeared in person and stated that the judgment and
decree passed by the Courts below are illegal and that he has been
deprived of justice illegally. When queried as to why the judgment and
decree passed by the Courts below are illegal, he stated that it is the
work of this Court to look into and that this Court should itself examine
the merits of the case and set aside the judgment and decree passed by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 02-11-2026
15:15:45
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86831
3 SA-2513-2022
the Courts below. After making such statement, the appellant left the
Court, hence, this Court had no other option but to go through the entire
record of the case and to ascertain the legality of the judgment and
decree passed by the Courts below. Though the conduct of the appellant
cannot be appreciated in any manner but for ensuring that due to his
actions he is not deprived of justice, his actions have been ignored and
the entire record has been scanned prior to passing of this order.
6. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff has admitted that he is not
aware as to in what manner the suit land was acquired by Kale Khan.
He has not filed any document showing Kale Khan to be recorded over
the suit land in 1980-81. In the documents filed by the plaintiff, Kale
Khan has never been recorded to be the owner of the suit land and
instead in Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-4, one Ajab Noor Bi has been
recorded to be the owner and Kale Khan has been recorded to be the
agriculturist. Mere recording as agriculturist in two revenue documents
would not confer title upon Kale Khan over the suit land, since in none
of the documents has he been recorded to be the owner. There is not a
single document which shows the plaintiff to have ever been recorded
over the suit land, hence, it is evident that he has failed to produce any
document recording either him or Kale Khan to be the owner of the suit
land at any point of time.
7. From the documents filed by defendants as Exhibit D-1 to D-7, it
is seen that Basodi had made an application for being conferred
Bhumiswami rights over the suit land. A case was duly registered and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 02-11-2026
15:15:45
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86831
4 SA-2513-2022
reports were called for and on 23.01.1985, order was passed for
granting Bhumiswami rights in his favour. Publication was made and
objections were invited but none was received. It was observed that
Basodi had been given the suit land in auction in 1966-67 on premium
of Rs.3,600/- and he has been regularly paying the land revenue and
there are no arrears. As per Exhibit P-7, Bhumiswami rights were
conferred upon Basodi and he was thereafter recorded over the suit land
in the revenue records. Though plaintiff contended that the documents
have been prepared fraudulently and title has been acquired by Basodi
illegally but he has not adduced any rebuttal documents in respect of
the same. The claim was by the plaintiff for declaration of his title,
hence it was for him to prove his title and that of his predecessor, which
he has failed to do, hence, even if for the sake of arguments the case of
the defendants is not accepted, then also the plaintiff would not be
entitled for any relief. His oral statement in this regard would be wholly
unacceptable. No steps have ever been taken by the plaintiff for
declaring the proceedings carried out vide Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-7
to be forged and fabricated up to the date of filing of the suit, hence, the
documents of defendants cannot be disbelieved and have hence rightly
been acted upon.
8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any
illegality having been committed by the Courts below in dismissing the
plaintiff's claim. The judgment and decree passed by them are on the
basis of the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence available on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 02-11-2026
15:15:45
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86831
5 SA-2513-2022
record and upon application of legal principles applicable to the facts of
the case. No case for interference at this stage is made out. No
substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.
9. Consequently, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the
Courts below, the appeal stands dismissed in limine.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
V
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIBHA PACHORI
Signing time: 02-11-2026
15:15:45