Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnarain Mali vs Nagarpalika Nagar Panchayat on 6 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
SECOND APPEAL No. 557 of 2003
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMNARAIN MALI S/O KISHANLAL, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, MALIPURA, KHILCHIPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHANDULAL DECED. THROUGH LRS
JASWANT S/O CHANDULAL OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE MALIPURA KHILCHIPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHANDULAL DECED. THROUGH LRS RAJESH
S/O CHANDULAL OCCUPATION:
AGRUCULTURE MALIPURA, KHILCHIPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PUNAMCHAND S/O KISHANLAL DECD.
THROUGH LRS BHERU S/O PUNAMCHAND
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE MALIPURA
KHILCHIPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PUNAMCHAND S/O KISHANLAL DECD.
THROUGH LRS GOLU S/O PUNAMCHAND
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE MALIPURA
KHILCHIPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. RADHESHYAM S/O KISHANLAL, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, MALIPURA KHILCHIPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ASHOK SHANKAR KUTUMBALE BY SHRI MOEED ALI BOHRA-
APPELLANT)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time: 06-02-
2024 19:17:27
-2-
1. NAGARPALIKA NAGAR PANCHAYAT
KHILCHIPUR THROUGH CHIEF MUNICIPAL
OFFICE KHILCHIPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ADYAKSHA, NAGARPALIKA NAGAR
PANCHYAT, KHILCHIPUR THROUGH CHIEF
MUNICIPAL OFFICE KHILCHIPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRASANNA R. BHATNAGAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-1].
Heard on : 02.01.2023
Pronounced on : 06 .02.2023
This appeal coming on for judgment this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal against
the following judgments and decrees;
(i) Judgment and decree dated 22.02.2002 passed in Civil Suit
No.144-A/1997 by Civil Judge Class-I, Khilchipur, District Rajgarh.
(ii) Judgment and decree dated 02.07.2003 passed in Regular
Civil Appeal No.32-A/2002 by Additional Judge, Rajgarh (Biora).
Parties to the appeal are referred with their ranks as assigned
in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
[2] The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit for possession of the land
P.H.No.59, Survey No.1131 area 0.024 hectare situated at Village
Khilchipur (hereinafter called as ' Suit Property') from the possession
of Nagar Palika Nagar Panchayat Khilchipur/defendant No.1.
According to the plaintiffs, father of plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and husband
of plaintiff No.5 was owner of the suit property and after his death,
their names were mutated in the revenue records. Due to ignorance of
the plaintiffs, the defendants constructed structure on the some part of
the suit property, the remaining land remained in possession of the
plaintiffs, therefore defendants be directed to remove and hand over the
possession to the plaintiffs.
[3] The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed written statement denying the
title of the plaintiffs and admitted that there has been a construction
since 1955 and land is covered by fencing since then, hence they have
prefected the title by way of adverse possession. The Kishanlal during
his life time did not object or challenge the possession of the
defendants for 18 years therefore plaintiffs have no right to claim the
possession.
[4] Six issues were framed by the Trial Court. The plaintiffs'
examined Chandulal (PW-1), Jamnalal (PW-2), Kaniram (PW-3),
Basantilal (PW-4) and Pannalal (PW-5) and exhibited 5 documents. In
defence, the defendants have examined Raghuraj Singh, Chief
Executive Officer (DW-1), Druvnarayan Purohit, Clerk (DW-2) and
Tejkaranji, President of Nagar Palika Khilchipur (DW-3) and exhibited
two documents.
[5] During pendency of plaint, the defendants have filed an
application under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. for framing additional
issues in respect of limitation, valuation, Court Fees and Jurisidction.
Vide order 19.03.1993, the learned Court has rejected the said
application for want of pleadings.
[6] After appreciating the evidence came on record, the issue No.1
in respect of title has been answered against the plaintiffs as no title
document prior to 1987-88 was filed and defendant Nagar Pakika has
proved the possession since 1955. It has also been observed that even if
there was any title of the plaintiffs that has been come to end because
adverse possession of the defendants. The defendants have failed to
prove the issue No.2 that suit land was transferred by way of
acquisition or exchange. The issue No.4 has been answered against the
plaintiffs that the defendants have forcefully taken the possession on
01.10.1989. The issue No.5 has been answered in favour of the
defendants that they have perfected the title by way of adverse
possession. Vide judgment dated 22.02.2002, the Civil Suit was
dismissed for possession as well as meanse profit.
[7] The plaintiffs preferred an Appeal before the District Court and
same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 02.07.2003,
hence, present Second Appeal before this Court.
[8] Vide order dated 12.12.2003, this Court had admitted the Second
Appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
'(1) Whether the Courts below have erred in
holding that the respondent Nagar Palika has perfected
the title over the suit land by averse possession ?
(2) 'Whether the dismissal of the suit is against
the facts and law applicable in the case ?'
[9] During pendency of this Second Appeal, the appellant No.1 and
4 and legal heirs of appellant No.2 have sold the part and partial of suit
property vide registered sale deed dated 26.06.2010 to Santoshi Bai,
Radhyshyam and Giriraj. They filed an application under Order 22
Rule 10 of C.P.C. seeking impleadment as plaintiffs/appellant in this
case. They filed documents of mutation of land on their names. Vide
order dated 01.10.2015, they have been permitted to be impleaded as
appellants in this Second Appeal.
[10] According to the newly added appellants/purchasers, they came
to know about the pendency of this Second Appeal in case of No.B
121/14 filed before Sub Divisional Officer for demolition of the
construction, however, during pendency of this Second Appeal
demolition proceedings were stayed.
[11] So far as title of plaintiffs are concerned, the plaintiffs filed
documents i.e. Kishtbandi Khatoni, Khasra Panchshala, Mauka Naksha
and Rin Pustika but no title documents have been filed. It is settled law
that the though revenue entries have presumptive value but they cannot
be treated as title document, therefore, on the basis of revenue entries,
the learned Court has rightly held that the plaintiffs have not filed any
title document to establish their title as well as their father.
[12] The possession of the defendant Nagar Palika by way of
construction of Kanji House and Pada House has been found proved on
the suit land. Even the plaintiffs' witnesses admitted that construction
is there since very long. The DW-1, the Chief Municipal Officer
deposed that the Nagar Palika constructed the Kanji House and Pada
House in the year 1955, comprising five small rooms, one courtyard
and three rooms of Kanji House. He has brought the documents in the
Court. The details of expenditure for construction has been produced.
The President of Nagar Palika was also examined who took the
decision in the year 1955 for construction of Kanji House and Pada
House, therefore the possession of the defendant on the said land has
been found to be proved since 1955. During the life, the father of the
plaintiffs never sought the possession of the land. The plaintiffs filed
the suit in the year 1999 i.e. after 35 years. Although no issue for
limitation was framed but admittedly, the suit is time barred. For
possession of the suit, the limitation is 12 years and after expiry of 12
years the owner loss right to claim possession as held by the Apex
Court in case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others Vs. Manjit Kaur
and others reported in (2019) SCC 729 in which it has been held that
if rightful owner does not commence any action to take possession
within limitation period, his rights are lost and the adverse possesses
acquires the right, title and interest, thus in this case, even the plaintiffs
have failed to prove their title over the land, therefore, the suit has
rightly been dismissed. As an alternate plea the Court has held that
even if some right but it was never exercised within time and defendant
has acquired the title by way of adverse possession.
[13] So far as subsequent purchasers are concerned, admittedly they
purchased the suit land during pendency of this Second Appeal,
therefore, they are also bound by judgment and decree, they cannot get
title by way of registered sale as original plaintiffs have failed to
establish their title.
[14] In view of above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with
the impugned judgments and decree passed by Courts below, thus the
substantial questions of law framed by this Court are answered against
the appellants/plaintiffs. Second Appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Praveen
