OMKARSINGH Vs. MAFI DARGAH KHAWAJA SAHAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 100 of the C.P.C is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15/03/2010 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Shajapur in Civil Appeal no. 43 -A/2009, whereby the judgment and decree dated 24/09/2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Class -I, Shajapur in Civil Suit no. 41 -A/2008 has been maintained.

(2.) The appellants /plaintiffs, who are legal heirs of deceased Badrilal, preferred the Civil Suit in respect of the agriculture land bearing survey no. 615 admeasuring 1.170 hectors situated at village Kheriya Nayata, Tehsil & District Shajapur for declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of averments that the disputed land was purchased by deceased Badrilal by registered sale deed dated 02/02/1968 from Kanchanbai W/o Gabbashah, who as per the revenue record, was the Bhumi -swami of the disputed land. It was further averred that the Tehsildar, Shajapur vide order dated 12/04/2006 has directed to enter the disputed land in the name of ' Mafi Dargah Khwaja Sahab '. The said order is totally illegal and without any basis as the plaintiffs/ appellants are in occupation and possession of the disputed land as Bhumi -swami since 02/02/1968, hence the order dated 12/04/2006 is totally illegal.

(3.) The respondents/defendants in their written statement, denying the aforesaid averments of the appellants/ plaintiffs, averred that the disputed land was recorded in Samvat 1966 ( year 1990) in the name of ' Maufi Dargah Khwaja Sahab Deh Haja Ahmam Pujari Gappa Wald Ramjan kha Kaum Fakir Shakin Deh Mafi Devsthan Dafu Jimun' and that the disputed land is Aukaf land and therefore, was non -transferable. Kanchanbai ( widow of Gappa S/o Ramjan Kha ) never had any right, title or interest in the disputed land. Gappa S/o Ramjan was simply caretaker of ' Mafi Dargah Khwaja Sahab ' and had no right to transfer the disputed land in any manner. It was further averred that Kanchanbai Wd/o Ramjan Khan had never acquired any right in the disputed land though her name somehow wrongly came to be recorded as Bhumi -swami in the revenue records, but that does not confer Bhumi -swami rights upon her, hence the sale deed executed by Kanchanbai on 02/02/1968 ( Annexure - P/1) in favour of Badrilal did not confer any right, title, interest upon Badrilal, hence the present appellants/ plaintiffs, who are the successor of Badrilal, had no right, title , interest in the disputed land. The Tehsildar, Shajapur, on the basis of original entry of Samvat 1966 has rightly corrected the entry in the revenue record with regard to the disputed land and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.