MUHAMMAD AYOOB KHAN Vs. KRISHNAPRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC by the defendants against the judgment dated 12.5.2000 passed in Civil Appeal No.106-A/1997 by the Second Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur arising out of judgment and decree dated 18.7.1996 passed in Civil Suit No.18- A/1989 by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Chhatarpur.

(2.) The original respondent/plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the agriculture land in certain khasra numbers, as indicated in the plaint, total area 26.571 hectares situated in village Goriya, Tehsil and District Chhatarpur was owned by him. It was contended that since he was in need of money, he mortgaged the said land with the appellant/defendant on 23.9.1969. The land was never transferred as an out and out sale to the appellant/defendant, on the other hand, the same was being cultivated by the appellant as permitted by the mortgage deed. Claiming appellant/defendant himself as occupancy tenant, he moved an application before the Tehsildar for the purposes of recording of his name on the revenue entries of the said disputed land. When respondent/plaintiff came to know about the said fact, he objected to the same, but the Tehsildar passed an order and directed transfer of the land in the name of appellant/defendant. Since the land was never transferred to the appellant, such an action on the part of the Tehsildar was bad in law. Therefore, the suit was required to be filed.

(3.) Upon service of the notice of the suit, a written statement was filed by the appellant denying such contentions of the respondent/plaintiff and it was contended that the land was ever since in possession of the appellant/defendant. He was cultivating the said land and, therefore, treating him as an occupancy tenant, his right was perfected under the provisions of Section 190 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. In fact, the appellant was put in possession by the respondent/plaintiff, as they were having good relations and on 23.9.1969 some document was shown to the appellant/defendant by the respondent/plaintiff on the pretext that it was a document to get the name of appellant mutated on the land. It was agreed that a regular sale deed would be executed. However, the appellant was in possession of the land as an occupancy tenant and therefore rightly his name was mutated in the revenue record. Since no such document of mortgage was executed, the respondent/plaintiff had no title over the land in suit. He categorically alleged that vide sale deed dated 4.11.1972 the land in suit was transferred in the name of appellant by the original respondent/plaintiff.