Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangu S/O Devilal Bhambi Through ... vs Mohanlal on 2 August, 2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 2nd OF AUGUST, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 3046 of 2023
MANGU S/O DEVILAL BHAMBI THROUGH MUKHTIYARAM
DAUGHTER SMT. KANCHANBAI
Versus
MOHANLAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naresh Piplodiya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Romil Verma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
01. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 is preferred feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
15.09.2023 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.01/2023 by First District
Judge, Khachrod, District - Ujjain arising out of judgment and decree
dated 20.12.2022 passed in RCSA No.30/2018 by Additional Civil Judge,
Junior Division, Khachrod, District - Ujjain (M.P.) whereby the suit of
plaintiff/respondent for declaration of title, recovery of possession and
means profit has been partly decreed to the effect of declaring the
plaintiff/respondent title holder of Survey No.715/3 area 0.39 hectare land
situated at village Runkheda, Tehsil - Khachrod, District Ujjain and
recovery of the possession from defendant no.1/appellant and that
judgment and decree have been affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
02. The facts of the case in the brief are that the plaintiff/respondent
no.1 filed the civil suit claiming the title over suit land on the strength of
lease (Exhibit-P/1) granted in favour of the plaintiff.
03. The appellant/defendant no.1 contested the suit on the ground that he
is in possession of the suit land since 2001. The plaintiff/respondent no.1
has not been in possession over the suit land since 2001 to 2018 and
defendant no.1/respondent has perfected his title over the suit land by
adverse possession. The suit is barred under Section 250 A of The Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and no relief has been claimed against
the Government of Madhya Pradesh.
04. The trial Court framed total nine issues and recorded the evidence of
Mohanlal (PW-1), Shivpal (PW-2), Babulal (PW-3) and Vinod (PW-4) and
admitted the documents (Exhibit-P/1 to P/8) on behalf of the plaintiff. The
defendant examined Kanchan as (DW-1) & Deepak Bohra as (DW-2) and
adduced Exhibit-D/1 (a power of attorney executed by defendant Mangulal
in favour of his daughter Kanchan), Exhibit-D/2 the Panchnama prepared
by Patwari and Exhibit-D/3 a report submitted by Patwari Halka No.37
village Panchayat, Runkheda to Tehsildar. The trial Court found prove that
the disputed land was allotted to plaintiff/respondent no.1 through Exhibit-
P/1 and defendant/appellant did not acquired title over the suit land on the
strength of adverse possession testing the case of defendant on the strength
of T.Anjanappa v. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570.
05. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed by the First
Appellate Court and challenging both the judgment and decree this second
appeal has been preferred proposing the following substantial question of
law. The substantial questions of law are reproduced below:-
"1. कककक्याक ददोनदोक वविदक्यानक अधधीनसकस्थक नककक्याकक्यालक
दक्यारक्याक दसकसक्याविवेंजक प्रदरर्शक पधी/1 जदोक ककीक रक्यासनक दक्यारक्या
ददकक्याकगकक्याकहह, जदोकसकवितकविककक्याकदसकसक्याविवेंजकमक्यानननेकमवें
वविधधकककीकभभुलकककीकहह।
2. कककक्याक ददोननोंक वविदक्यानक अधधीनसकस्थक नककक्याकक्यालक
दक्यारक्याक सक्याकककक कनेक आधक्यारक परक ददएक गएक धनषककरर्श
वविधधकधसदक्यानकसनोंककनेकवविपररसकहहैं।
3. कहकदककवविदक्यानकअधधीनसकस्थकनककक्याकक्यालककदक्यारक्या
इसकसथककककदोकसकविधीकक्यारककरननेक मवेंक तभुदटिकककीकहहक दक,
प्रतककस्थर्थीक अधधपतकककमवेंक नकहदोननेकहभुएकपटटिक्याधक्याररीककहसने
हदोकसकसनेकहहैं।"
07. On perusal of Exhibit-P/1, it transpires that through this Patta, the
Bhumiswami rights has been conferred and the evidence adduced regarding
adverse possession on behalf of the defendant/appellant does not render the
findings of the trial Court as perverse. Otherwise also, the findings of the
trial Court regarding adverse possession are findings of fact and that does
not call for interference in second appeal. Hence, the present second appeal
is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
vs
