KAILASH CHAND SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.2.11 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.3, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 29/08 whereby the appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22nd July, 2008 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (SD) No.2, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Regular Civil Suit No. 63/03.

(2.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. S.P. Mathur for the appellant that the land in question was allotted to him by Gram Panchayat Khand Ganwadi, Tehsil Ladpura on 16.5.58 and since then the appellant was in possession of the said land. According to him since the respondents were trying to cause obstruction to the plaintiff in raising the construction on the said plot, the suit was filed for permanent injunction, which has been wrongly dismissed by the trial court and the appellate court. Relying upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Sawarni (Smt.) Vs. Inder Kaur (Smt.) and Others (1996) 6 SCC 223, the learned counsel submitted that the mutation of name in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title nor has any presumptive value on title, as it only entitles the person concerned to pay the land revenue. According to him, merely because the names of the respondents were mutated in the revenue records, it did not mean that they were the owners of the land in question. Relying upon another decision of Apex Court in case of Prataprai N. Kothari Vs. John Braganza (1999) 4 SCC, 403 he submitted that even the owner of the property cannot get back the possession of the property without following the due process of law. He further submitted that in the criminal proceedings filed against the father of the appellant, the Supreme Court has acquitted him as per the order dated 31.1.73 in Cr. Appeal No. 105 of 1970.

(3.) IN the instant case, it appears that the land which was allotted by the State Government to the Army in the year 1950, was sought to be given on Patta by the father of the appellant-plaintiff to his own son who was aged only about 4-5 years in the year 1958, when his father was Up-sarpanch and Incharge of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khand Ganwadi for few days. Both the courts below after having rightly appreciated the evidence on record, have dismissed the suit and the appeal of the appellant. Apart from the fact that there are no substantial questions of law involved in the instant appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, because of the glaring facts of misuse of powers and position at the instance of the father of the appellant by illegally giving Patta of the land in question to his own son who was only aged about 4-5 years in the year 1058, this court is not inclined to entertain the present appeal. It is not disputed that the names of the respondents have been mutated in Jamabandi since samvat year 2016 and the possession of the land in question is also with the respondents. The appellant having failed to establish any legal right or title over the suit land, both the courts below have rightly passed the orders against the present appellant. There being no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below, the appeal does not deserve any consideration, more particularly when no substantial question of law are involved in the appeal.