Dhaniram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 989 MP

                                                             1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                 ON THE 17 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                              SECOND APPEAL No. 1933 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          DHANIRAM S/O MANUAA KACHI, AGED ABOUT 81
                          Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: FARMER, R/O VILLAGE
                          GURAIYA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....APPELLANT
                          (BY SHRI AMAN GUPTA-ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                          COLLECTOR CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY MS. KAMLESH TAMRAKAR-PANEL LAWYER )

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

This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff challenging the

judgment and decree dated 19.07.2022 passed by Principal District Judge, Chhatarpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.9-A/2019 affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2019 passed by 4th Civil Judge Class-I, Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.2100033/2016 whereby learned Courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land survey nos.69, 70/1, 70/2 and 74/9 situated in village Guraiya, Tahsil and District Chhatarpur.

Signature Not Verified

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit in respect of the aforesaid land claiming Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 1/19/2023 6:00:46 PM

himself to be Bhumiswami on the basis of order dated 27.12.1996 passed by the Naib Tahsildar Chhatarpur and alternatively by way of amendment, plea of adverse possession has also been taken.

3. Learned courts below after having considered entire material available on record held that the plaintiff has failed to prove himself to be Bhumiswami and in possession of the land in question but, the land in question belongs to the State Government. The plaintiff has also failed to produce the order dated 27.12.1996 regarding which pleading has been made in paragraph 3 of the plaint. Accordingly learned courts below have dismissed the suit.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff is in

possession of the suit land since the time of his ancestor Manua Kachhi, w.e.f. the year 1952. He submits that in the light of continuous entries of possession the plaintiff ought to have been declared to be owner and accordingly he was entitled for decree of permanent injunction. He also submits that on the basis of long possession the plaintiff has acquired title by adverse possession also.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

6. The plaintiff in the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction has come on the basis of order dated 27.12.1996 passed in panji no.7 by Naib Tahsildar Chhatarpur, but the order has not been produced by the plaintiff on record. It is well settled that the entries of possession made in the revenue record do not give rise to any title, therefore, in my considered opinion the learned courts below have not committed any illegality in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff.

7. Even otherwise in the light of plea of adverse possession taken by the plaintiff, he cannot be said to be owner/Bhumiswami of the land in question and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 1/19/2023 6:00:46 PM

the plea of adverse possession cannot be considered in presence of the plea of ownership.

8. Resultantly, the second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.

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

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE ss

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SWETA SAHU Signing time: 1/19/2023 6:00:46 PM