Dispute Over Property Ownership and Possession: Analysis of Rajnarayan Sharma vs. Sirnam Sharma

The present appeal arises from the judgment dated 12.12.2005, passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Bench at Indore, in Second Appeal No. 189/1999. This judgment set aside the decision of the Additional District Judge, Gohad, in Civil First Appeal No. 65/98, and confirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellants (Rajnarayan Sharma) challenged this judgment, resulting in the appeal being heard before the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein), Sirnam Sharma and others, had filed a Civil Suit No. 8-A/87 seeking a declaration of title, cancellation of certain sale deeds, and an injunction concerning land in the village of Chandhara, Tehsil Gohad, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. They contended that they had been in possession of the land as sub-lessees of Bansi (Banshi), after paying Rs. 5,000, and that the land could not have been transferred by Bansi (Banshi) due to his mental illness. The defendants (Rajnaryan Sharma) countered by producing sale deeds that they had obtained from Bansi (Banshi) and his subsequent purchaser, Raghunath, and contended that the plaintiffs had no right to the land.

The trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, but this was reversed by the first appellate court, which found that the plaintiffs failed to establish ownership or possession of the property. The High Court partially allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal, agreeing that they had no right or title to the land but concluding they were in possession and could not be dispossessed except by due process of law.

The key issue in this appeal was the question of possession. The first appellate court and the High Court had found that the plaintiffs were not sub-lessees, and their claims regarding the payment of Rs. 5,000 were not substantiated by documentary evidence. The plaintiffs relied on khasra entries from 1974 to 1985, which listed their names as being in possession of the land. However, these entries were later cancelled by a superior revenue officer, which led to the court finding that no evidence supported the plaintiffs’ claims of possession.

The appellants also produced two sale deeds (dated 16.07.1984 and 21.09.1989) which were not disputed by the plaintiffs. These sale deeds indicated that possession of the property had been transferred to the defendants, Raghunath and subsequently to Rajnarayan Sharma. Additionally, the names of the defendants had been entered into the revenue records, and they had continued to cultivate the land.

In the final analysis, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to provide any documentary evidence supporting their claim of possession. The entries in the revenue records were insufficient and had been invalidated. The High Court’s finding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land was reversed, and the appeal filed by Rajnarayan Sharma was allowed, resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ suit.

The Supreme Court concluded by setting aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissing the Civil Suit No. 8-A/87 in its entirety. No order was made with regard to costs.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Rajnaryan Sharma vs Sirnam Sharma and ot Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 12-09-2017.pdf