RAHEESH KHAN Vs. SURESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on admission.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Survey Number 134 over an area of 1.526 hectare, situated at village Toda Karera, Tahsil Karera was granted on Patta in favour of respondents 2 to 5. After Bandobast Khasra Number is changed from 134 to 202,238,239 and 124. After allotment of Patta, the land was demarcated and possession was delivered to Banshi. On 30.11.1985 by registered sale deed Banshi transferred the suit land in favour of Manila Meera Bai w/o Chhotelal. After sale deed name of Meera Bai was not mutated in the revenue record. On 5.12.1990,MeeraBai executed a Will in favour of Raheesh Khan, the appellant. After the death of Banshi, respondents filed an application before the revenue authorities for mutating their names. Naib Tahsildar vide order dated 1.5.1989 (Ex. D-2) recorded the name of respondents and held that sale by Banshi in favour of Mst. Meera is void under the provisions ofMP. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The sale is prohibited and, therefore, the said sale is void and passed an order to that effect and rejected the application for mutation filed by Meera and name of Banshi was recorded in the revenue record vide Ex. D-3. The land was demarcated vide order dated 29.4.1989 (Ex. D-4) and possession was delivered to Banshi vide Ex. D-5 and Banshi was in possession of the suit land and after his death, the name of the respondents were recorded in the revenue record and they are in possession of the suit land.

(3.) THE respondents filed their written statement and averred that the suit land was granted on patta. After grant of Patta, Banshi was in possession of the suit land during his life time and even after execution of the sale deed, he was in possession and after his death, the possession of the respondents were recorded in the revenue record. Meera Bai and plaintiff filed an application for mutating their names on the basis of the sale deed, but the said application was rejected by the SDO on 1.5.1989 vide Ex. D-2 and after death of his father Banshi, they are continuously in possession of the land in question and since his father had no right to transfer the property under the provisions of section 158 (3) read with section 165 (7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, therefore, the sale deed dated 30.11.1985 (Ex. P-9) is void as no prior permission was obtained from the Collector as required under the said provisions. It is also averred that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and will dated 5.12.1990 is forged will prepared by the plaintiff, therefore, the appellant will not get any right over the suit property. He is not in possession of the suit land and, therefore, no injunction can be granted in his favour.