Omprakash vs Brajmohan
2024 Latest Caselaw 4080 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Omprakash vs Brajmohan on 12 February, 2024

Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney

Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney

                               1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                 ON THE 12 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                  SECOND APPEAL No. 470 of 2018

BETWEEN:-
1.    OMPRAKASH S/O SHRI SONPAL DHAKAD, AGED
      ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOTEL DUKAN

2.    RAJENDRA S/O RAMCHARAN RATHOUR, AGED
      ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOTEL SHOP

3.    RAJENDRA SINGH S/O BHAGIRATH KUSHWAH,
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOTEL
      SHOP
      ALL R/O SIKANDARPUR NARWAR, TEHSIL
      NARWAR,   DISTRICT  SHIVPURI  (MADHYA
      PRADESH).

                                                        .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI YASH SHARMA - LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF
OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.    BRAJMOHAN      S/O     SHRI    MADANLAL
      MAHESHWARI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O
      WARD NO. 7 NARVAR TAHSIL NARVAR DISTRICT
      SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      COLLECTOR SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO. 1 BY MS. SIMRAN KOTHARI - LEARNED COUNSEL
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SHRI AMIT LAHOTI - ADVOCATE AND
RESPONDENT NO. 2/STATE BY SHRI VIJAY SUNDARAM - PANEL
LAWYER )

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

This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is directed by appellants/plaintiffs against the concurring judgment and decree dated 15/1/2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No.21- A/202 ; whereby, the judgment and decree dated 10/10/2017 passed by First Civil Judge, Class II, Karera, District Shivpuri in Civil Shit No.88-A/2015 has been affirmed . The suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed.

2 . Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that appellants filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit land a land ad-measuring 0.003 hectare out of survey No. 1590 area 0.320 hectare situate at Village Sikandarpur, Tehsil Narwar, District Shivpuri on

the ground that over land in question they are in possession since last 35 years and are running hotel and also having electricity and waterline connections in their name. On the basis of long drawn possession they acquired; however, since their name is not mutated in the revenue records, respondent No. 1 is trying to dispossess them and for this purpose initiated proceedings under Section 250 of MPLRC before the Court of Tehsildar Narwar.

3. Defendant No. 1/respondent no. 1 filed written statement and denied all the plaint allegations. It is specifically pleaded that suit is time barred. Plaintiffs are in possession of different parts of land and therefore, they have to move separate suits for each land. He purchased the land in question from one Harikrishan S/o Ambika Prasad and his name has also been mutated in revenue record. The bills of Electricity and water are not in respect of disputed land. Plaintiffs are not in actual possession of the suit land for last 35 years.

4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon detailed examination of evidence on record, dismissed the suit.

5. On appeal, the first appellate Court,while deciding the appeal dealt with the matter exhaustively with due advertence to oral and documentary evidence on record and found that plaintiffs failed to prove their uninterrupted possession over the suit land and also found that as per the provisions of law and on the basis of adverse possession also, it cannot be held that plaintiffs are owners of the land. First appellate Court found the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land at the best as encroachers.

6 . After having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the view that the entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of facts which in the opinion of this Court do not warrant any interference under Section 100 of CPC. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Appeal is therefore, dismissed.

(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE JAI JPS/- Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA

PRAKAS PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf17 9cec865c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522

H a, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6 B8072A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA 8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI

SOLANKI Date: 2024.02.15 10:12:28 +05'30'