Deceased Rughnath Through Lrs. ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12284 MP

                                                             1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                                ON THE 2 nd OF AUGUST, 2023
                                              SECOND APPEAL No. 733 of 2019

                          BETWEEN:-
                          DECEASED RUGHNATH THROUGH LRS. RADHESHYAM
                          S/O RUGHNATH GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
                          OCCUPATION:    AGRICULTURE    R/O   VILLAGE
                          BHILKHEDI, TEH. MALHARGARH, DISTT. MANDSAUR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                          (BY SHRI KAILASH PATIDAR AND SHRI YASH PAL RATHORE -
                          ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DISTRICT
                                COLLECTOR MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CHEIF SECRETARY
                                CENTRAL SECRETORIATE NEW DELHI (DELHI)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

                          following:
                                                              ORDER

This appeal by plaintiff under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.203/2017 by the 3rd Additional District Judge, District -Mandsaur affirming the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.104-A/2016 by the Civil Judge, Class -I, Narayanghar, District Mandsaur.

2. Plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 03-Aug-23 1:34:32 PM

the consequential relief inter alia contending that the suit land as described in paragraph No.4 of the plaint has all along been in possession of Iliyas Mohammad s/o Abdul Hamid, Azaz Mohammad s/o Abdul Wahid Kha and Ishah Mohammad s/o Abdul Wahid Kha situated in village Bhilkhedi prior to 15.08.1947 ploughing the field and harvesting crops. Though after partition, the aforesaid persons had migrated to Pakistan but, their names continued in the revenue record as Pakka Krishak. After coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959; they had acquired Bhumi Swami Rights and accordingly, recorded in the revenue record. In the year 1973-74, three cases were registered before Tehsildar, Malharganj, viz., 01/73-74A/25, 02/73-

74A/25 and 03/73-74A/25 for substituting the name of State of Madhya Pradesh in place of the aforesaid persons and since then, the suit land is shown to be that of State of Madhya Pradesh. The plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit land but, apprehending dispossession three civil suits, viz., 166A/2004, 167A/2004 and 168A/2004 were filed before the trial Court whereunder claimed that the aforesaid three persons acquired the status of upkrishak, maursi krishak and bhumi swami rights, therefore, sought for declaration of title and possession in that behalf. Out of the aforesaid three civil suits, the predecessors of plaintiff and/or plaintiff was one of the plaintiffs. All the aforesaid civil suits were dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2005. Being aggrieved thereof, three first appeals were filed, viz., 27A/, 28A and 29A of 2006 and the same were also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20/12/2008 on technical ground extending liberty to file separate suits by three individual plaintiffs. The said judgment and decree had attained finality as the same was not further challenged.

In the aforesaid factual matrix, the instant suit is filed seeking title on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 03-Aug-23 1:34:32 PM

basis of long uninterrupted, peaceful and continuous possession over thirty years and, therefore, acquired title by adverse possession.

3. Defendants filed written statement and denied plaint allegations inter alia contending that the suit land since the year 1974 has all along been shown to be that of State Government. It is denied that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land as claimed. With the aforesaid pleadings, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence.

5. Trial Court upon critical evaluation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record reached conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession over the suit land after scrutinizing the khasra panchsala/revenue record to maintain the claim of title by adverse possession. The trial Court also found that the suit is barred by time as according to the plaintiff, he is alleged to be in possession for last thirty years since the year 1947 for which cause of action had arisen on 16.08.1977 whereas the suit was filed on 05/01/2015, therefore, hit by Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

6. On appeal, the first appellate Court has re-assessed the entire evidence placed on record, particular revenue record well discussed in paragraphs 24, 25

and 26 of the judgment. The first appellate Court has also discussed the oral evidence in that behalf in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment and reached conclusion that the evidence so led is self-contradictory not establishing how the plaintiff came into possession over the suit land and the alleged claim of continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the suit land for the last

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 03-Aug-23 1:34:32 PM

thirty years. Accordingly, affirmed the findings of fact so recorded by the trial Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant though tried to impinge the findings of the Courts below but, has not been able to substantiate the assertions so made in the teeth of well considered impeccable findings of fact based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record. Since the entire gamut of the matter is in the realm of facts and no question of law, much less; substantial question of law arises in this appeal warranting interference under Section 100 CPC, appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

8. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land, ploughing the field and harvesting crops, therefore, seeks protection. This Court refrains from commenting thereupon, it is considered apposite to observe that if the plaintiff is in physical possession over the suit land, he shall not be dispossessed from the suit land without due process of law.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 03-Aug-23 1:34:32 PM