RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's further appeal against an affirming decree of the lower appeal Court dismissing his suit for a declaration that he is the Bhumidhari or, at any rate an occupancy tenant of certain plots of village Chhaptara, which are more particularly described in paragraph 2 of the plaint.

(2.) IT is common ground that Mahant Ramkrishnadas, father of the minor plaintiff, was the sole proprietor of village Chhaptara upto the date of vesting as indicated in section 3 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Abolition Act). Claiming title to the disputed plots under two registered lease deeds dated 15 November 1949, which Ramkrishnadas executed in favour of the plaintiff, he applied under section 6 (2) of the Abolition Act for a declaration that the leases would not be void after the date of vesting. Since those leases were made before 16 March 1950, no action was taken on that application. Subsequently, in the year 1955, the Nistar Officer cum Additional Deputy Commissioner included 47.11 acres out of the disputed plots (49.24 acres) in the Nistar Patrak prepared by him and also recorded that the residents of the village had grazing rights over the land. That Nistar Patrak was published in the village on 20 November 1955. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff solved upon the State Government a notice dated 1 October 1956; as required by section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) THE defence is that the lease deed, were bogus and fraudulent in that they were made in order to avoid the vesting of the disputed plus in the State. The two leases being thus of no effect, all those plots vested in the State and Nistar Officer rightly treated them as so vested for the purpose of preparing Nistar Patrak. It is also pleaded that, since the plaintiff did not appeal against the order of the Nistar Officer and did not also take my action for getting the entries made in the Nistar Patrak corrected, it is no longer open to him to challenge the entries and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit directed against those entries.