BAIYANT SINGHA Vs. PARMJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the orders dtd. 12/1/2022 and 10/3/2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior in case No. 1020/2020-21/Appeal and Case No.45/2021-22/Review, order dtd. 18/2/2021 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ashoknagar in Case No.05/Appeal/2020-21 and order dtd. 16/6/2020 passed by Tahsildar, Ashoknagar in Case No. 0080/A-6/2020-21.

(2.) It appears that an application under Ss. 109, 110 of MPLRC was filed by the respondent-Paramjeet before the Tehsildar, Ashoknagar seeking mutation of her name in the revenue record on the basis of Will of Trilok Singh. The Tehsildar adjudicated the Will and found it to be genuine and passed an order dtd. 16/6/2020 (Annexure P-1) directing the authorities to record the name of applicant. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the SDO, which too has been dismissed vide order dtd. 18/2/2021 (Annexure P- 2) on merits. Aggrieved by the order dtd. 18/2/2021 passed by the SDO, petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which has b e e n dismissed vide order dtd. 12/1/2022 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, petitioners preferred a review petition before the Additional Commissioner, which too has been dismissed vide order dtd. 10/3/2022 (Annexure P-4). Annexures P-1 to P-4 are under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Plaintiff/Respondent filed a civil suit No. RCSA/105/20 before the Court below seeking injunction that the Defendants/petitioners be restrained from interfering in the possession. Surprisingly, in the entire plaint, the respondent has not disclosed about the Will of Triok Singh in her favour. The civil suit was contested by the petitioners herein and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the plaintiff and defendants both. Both were allowed by the Trial Court restraining the defendants/petitioners from interfering in the peaceful possession and restraining the plaintiff/respondent to alienate the property.