ABDUL WAHEED KHAN versus BHAWANI AND ORS.

ABDUL WAHEED KHAN versus BHAWANI AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that Section 200(1) of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, read with Sections 71, 89, 93 and 95, does not bar the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits based on title, as the question of title is foreign to the scope of Section 71 and the decisions or entries in the revenue record are only presumptive evidence. Concurrent findings of fact as to title upheld, and the suit was not barred by limitation as per Article 142 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Parties
Appellant: Abdul Waheed Khan; Respondents: Bhawani and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 February 1966
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Madhya Pradesh High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Title to Land, Limitation, Presumption of Entries in Record of Rights
Civil Law Land Revenue Jurisdiction Title to Land Limitation Presumption of Entries in Record of Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Waheed Khan

Appellant

Bhawani and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Madhya Pradesh High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision of the revenue court on the question of title bars the jurisdiction of the civil court
  2. 2 Whether the suit was barred by limitation
  3. 3 Whether the presumption raised by entries in the register of rights was rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that Section 200(1) of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, read with Sections 71, 89, 93 and 95, does not bar the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits based on title, as the question of title is foreign to the scope of Section 71 and the decisions or entries in the revenue record are only presumptive evidence. Concurrent findings of fact as to title upheld, and the suit was not barred by limitation as per Article 142 of the Indian Limitation Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs