Maniram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3541 MP

                           1
 IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                ON THE 28 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                 SECOND APPEAL No. 77 of 2020

BETWEEN:-
1.    MANIRAM S/O LATE SHRI KALLU SHAHU, AGED
      ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE OLD POWER
      HOUSE MOHALLA AJAUGARDH, DIST. PANNA,
      M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    RIZWAN KHAN S/O LATE SHER KHAN, AGED
      ABOUT 53 YEARS, KHARA KUWA AJAYGARDH
      TEH/ AJAYGARDH (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    SANTRAM S/O MUNNILAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT
      41  YEARS, BADIROONDH AJAYGARDH TEH.
      AJAYGARDH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                  .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI RAVISH AGRAWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED WITH MS.
SANJANA SAHANI, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.2)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
      COLLECTOR PANNA PANNA, M.P. (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    TEHSILDAR TEH. AJAYGARDH DISTT. PANNA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    MAHIPENDRA SINGH S/O LATE DEVENDRA VIJAY
      SINGH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, KACHIYANA
      MOHALLA CIVIL LINES AJAYGARDH (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

4.    SAILESH VIKRAM SINGH S/O SHRI MAHIPENDRA
      VIKRAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
      KACHIYANA MOHALLA CIVIL LINES AJAYGARDH
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
                            2
(BY MS. KAMLESH TAMRAKAR-PANEL LAWEYR AND SHRI AJAY KUMAR
OJHA-ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR)

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

This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgement and decree dated 04/10/2019 passed by District Judge, Panna in Civil Appeal No.30/2017 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20/12/2016 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Ajaygarh in Civil Suit No.37-A/2015 whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land Khasra No.13 area 6.00 hectare situated at Village Badiroondh, Halka

Bahadurganj, Tahsil Ajaygarh, District Panna has been dismissed.

2. In short, the facts are that the plaintiffs claiming themselves to be in possession of the aforesaid land on the basis of purchase of land from Anand Rao Telang S/o Late Manohar Rao Telang for consideration of Rs.1,85,000/- (One Lac Eighty Five Thousand) prayed for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is alleged in the plaint that Late Manohar Rao Telang was in possession of the land since prior to the year 1950 and acquired Bhumiswami rights on the basis of adverse possession and before his death, he handed over possession of the land to his son Anand Rao Telang for agricultural purpose and he later on sold the same to the plaintiffs on 22/07/2002. On interalia allegations, the plaintiffs instituted the suit.

3. Defendants 1-2 did not appear despite service of summons, therefore, the suit was proceeded ex-parte. However, defendants 3-4 appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and claimed themselves to be Bhumiswami and in possession of land in question.

4. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties. framed

issues and recorded evidence of the parties and vide its judgement and decree dated 20/12/2016 dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have not acquired any title on the basis of adverse possession and have also failed to prove their possession on the land in question. Upon appeal filed by the plaintiffs, learned first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04/10/2019, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs placing reliance on the certificate (Ex. P/4) submits that the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, Manohar Rao Telang was given loan of Rs.1,000/- by the State Government for digging a well on the land in question, which proves that he was in possession of the land in question and was cultivating the land from the well for which the loan was given. He submits that learned Courts below have discarded this certificate (Ex.P/4) on the ground that it does not bear Khasra Number. He further submits that if this document is taken into consideration, then the suit deserves to be decreed and the Second Appeal deserves to be admitted.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below and prays for dismissal of the Second Appeal.

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

8. There is no documentary evidence/Khasra entries on record to show

the possession of the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs i.e. Manohar Rao Telang or Anand Rao Telang, over the land bearing Khasra No.13. The certificate (Ex.P/4) which has been discarded by learned Courts below, does not bear any Khasra number but the same has also not been proved by the plaintiffs as per provision contained in Section 47/67 of the Evidence Act, 1872, therefore, the certificate (Ex P/4) being not a public document, has rightly been

discarded by the learned Courts below.

9. It is well settled that the finding on the question of possession is a pure finding of fact and is not liable to be interfered with in the limited scope of Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code.

10. Resultantly, the instant Second Appeal having no substantial question of law, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

11. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE Astha

Digitally signed by ASTHA SEN Date: 2023.03.01 18:39:47 +05'30'