Phoolji vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9643 MP

                                                  1
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT JABALPUR
                                                 BEFORE
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                           ON THE 14th OF JULY, 2022

                                       SECOND APPEAL No. 924 of 2011

                           Between:-
                      1.   PHOOLJI S/O JAGANYA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
                           VILLAGE BICHHAWAR TAHSIL TIMARNI
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.   GULAB S/O PHOOLJI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
                           VILL. BICHHAWAR, TAH. TIMARNI (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                      3.   GENDALAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
                           3-A. MANGIBAI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, WD/O
                           LATE GENDALAL
                           3-B. GANESH PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                           S/O LATE GENDALAL
                           3-C. MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE
                           GENDALAL
                           3-D. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE
                           GENDALAL
                           ALL R/O VILLAGE BICHHAWAR, TEHSIL
                           TIMARNI, DISTRICT HARDA (M.P.)

                      4.   GANESH S/O GENDALAL, AGED ABOUT 48
                           YEAR S , VILL. BICHHAWAR, TAH. TIMARNI
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      5.   MISHRILAL S/O MOTI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                           VILL. BICHHAWAR, TAH. TIMARNI (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                      6.   BADRI S/O MOTI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, VILL.
                           BICHHAWAR,   TAH.    TIMARNI    (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                      7.   KOMAL S/O LALU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
                           VILL. BICHHAWAR, TAH. TIMARNI
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      8.   BHAROSE S/O LALU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
Signature Not
 SAN
Verified                   VILL. BICHHAWAR, TAH. TIMARNI (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)
Digitally signed by
RASHMI RONALD
VICTOR
Date: 2022.07.15
17:24:45 IST
                             2
9.    LALA S/O RASAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, VILL.
      BICHHAWAR,    TAH.   TIMARNI    (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

10.   SUMERSINGH S/O PRAYAG, AGED ABOUT 58
      YEAR S , VILL. BICHHAWAR, TAH. TIMARNI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

11.   KUNWARSINGH S/O PRAYAG, AGED ABOUT 48
      YEAR S , VILL. BICHHAWAR, TAH. TIMARNI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

12.   NARAYAN S/O BABULAL, AGED ABOUT 53
      YEAR S , VILL. BICHHAWAR, TAH. TIMARNI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

13.   BARJLAL S/O RAKKU KEER, AGED ABOUT 48
      YEAR S , VILL. BICHHAWAR, TAH. TIMARNI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

14.   BARJLAL
      14-A. KALABAI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, WD/O
      LATE BRIJLAL
      14-B. RAJESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE
      BRIJLAL
      14-C. SANTOSH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O
      LATE BRIJLAL
      ALL R/O VILLAGE BICHHAWAR, TAHSIL
      TIMARNI     DISTRICT   HARDA      (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

15.   KEWALRAM S/O MUNNA BALAHI, AGED ABOUT
      53 YEARS, VILL. BICHHAWAR, TAH. TIMARNI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

16.   KISHAN S/O RAMKARAN KEER, AGED ABOUT
      48 YEARS, VILL. BICHHAWAR, TAH. TIMARNI
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                    .....APPELLANTS
      (BY SHRI SHAILENDRA VERMA, ADVOCATE)

      AND

      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      COLLECTOR HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                    .....RESPONDENT
      (BY SHRI MUKUND AGRAWAL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                                     3
        Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

Heard on I.A. Nos.4366/2016, 4367/2016 and 4368/2016, the aforesaid I.As. have been filed for substitution of legal representatives of respondents 3 & 14.

2. Upon due consideration, I.A. Nos.4366/2016, 4367/2016 and 4368/2016 are allowed and disposed off with the direction to the learned counsel for the appellants to carry out necessary amendment today itself.

3. With the consent of the parties, heard on question of admission.

4. This second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30/07/2011 passed by First Additional District Judge, Harda in Civil Appeal No.24-A/2011, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30/06/2011 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Harda in Civil Suit No.48-A/2010. However, by the impugned judgment and decree, learned Lower Appellate Court, as has been mentioned in Para 24 of its judgment, granted decree of limited injunction.

5. Facts in short are that the plaintiffs instituted suit against the respondent/defendant/State with the allegation that they are in possession of the disputed agricultural land Khasra No.134/1 area 44.312 hectare situated in village Bicchapur, Tehsil Timarani, District Harda. It was alleged that the

plaintiffs being in possession over the agricultural land in dispute, have acquired title by adverse possession. Hence, prayed for grant of decree of declaration and permanent injunction.

6. Defendant appeared and by filing written statement contended that the land in question belongs to State Government and so recorded in the revenue

papers. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the land in question and have not acquired title by adverse possession. On inter-alia contentions, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. Learned trial court after framing the issues recorded evidence of parties and upon due consideration of the evidence held that the plaintiffs have no right or possession over the suit land and have also not acquired title by adverse possession and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30/06/2011. Upon appeal, first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.07.2011 confirmed the judgment and decree of trial court. However, finding the possession, granted decree of limited injunction, as has been mentioned in Para 24 of the impugned judgment.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as the learned court below has found the plaintiffs to be in possession and they are in long possession, therefore, they have acquired title by adverse possession. Accordingly, he prays for admission of the appeal.

9. Shri Mukund Agrawal, leaned Government Advocate for respondent/state submits that in the light of decisions in the case of Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and Another (2014) 1 SCC 669 and Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Ors. v. Manjit Kaur and Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 729, the appellants/plaintiffs cannot maintain the suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and he submits that there is no scope for interference in the concurrent judgment and decree dismissing the suit for declaration of title and prays for dismissal of the second appeal.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. Learned Lower Appellate Court having found the plaintiffs/appellants to be in possession of the disputed agriculture land has granted limited decree

of injunction as per Para 24 of its judgment, therefore, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the aforesaid decisions Gurdwara Sahib (supra) and Ravinder Kaur Grewal (supra) there is no scope in the second appeal even to argue the matter on the basis of adverse possession against the State, which still hold the field.

12. In view of the aforesaid, there being no involvement of substantial question of law, the second appeal is dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. However, no order as to cost.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE RS