Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sumta Dhobi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 1019 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. SUMTA DHOBI W/O LATE LOTAN SINGH
DHOBI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSE WIFE GRAM KOUDIYA TEH. GADARWARA
DIST. NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHIVSHANKAR S/O LATE LOTAN SINGH DHOBI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE GRAM KOUDIYA TAHSIL
GADARWARA DISTT.NARSINGHPUR (M.P)
3. KASHIRAM S/O LATE LOTAN SINGH DHOBI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE GRAM KOUDIYA TAHSIL
GADARWARA DISTT.NARSINGHPUR (M.P)
4. BABULAL S/O LATE LOTAN SINGH DHOBI, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
GRAM KOUDIYA TAHSIL GADARWARA
DISTT.NARSINGHPUR (M.P)
5. MUKESH S/O LATE LOTAN SINGH DHOBI, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
GRAM KOUDIYA TAHSIL GADARWARA
DISTT.NARSINGHPUR (M.P)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR DIST. NARSINGHPUR (M.P)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VIJAY PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATTYENDAR
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 2/22/2024
7:11:22 PM
2
following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
2. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
challenging the judgement and decree dated 07.03.2020 passed by Third
Additional District Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsingpur, in RCA No.40/2018
affirming judgment and decree dated 08.08.2018 passed by Additional Judge to
the Court of First Civil Judge Class-II, Gadarwara, in Civil Suit No.90-A/2015
whereby appellants/plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction on the basis of adverse possession in respect of agriculture land total
area 4.350 hectare situated in Village Koudiya, Tahsil Gadarwara has been
dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs being in
possession of the suit land for last 50 years prior to date of filing of the suit i.e.
03.04.2014, have acquired title by adverse possession but learned Courts below
have on the premise that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove their
possession for more than 30 years, dismissed the suit. Learned counsel submits
that from the documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/8) produced by the
plaintiffs, possession of the plaintiffs is proved from the year 2001 to 2011.
4. Learned counsel further submits that in absence of written statement
and there being no cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses, the case
pleaded and proved by the plaintiffs ought to have been accepted. He also
submits that if the Court was of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to
prove their title, then on the basis of their long and settled possession they
should have been granted limited decree of permanent injunction. With the
aforesaid submissions he prays for admission of the second appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State supports the
impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below and prays for
dismissal of second appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From documentary evidence available on record (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/8),
possession of the plaintiffs appears to be recorded only in 11 years, whereas
for acquiring title on the basis of adverse possession against the Government,
hostile and continuous possession of more than 30 years should be proved by
the person claiming adverse possession against the State Government.
8. Learned Courts below on the basis of aforesaid documentary evidence
coupled with the oral evidence adduced by plaintiffs, have come to conclusion
that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession of more than 30 years
and resultantly dismissed the suit.
9. Upon perusal of the entire record, findings recorded by Courts below
do not appear to be perverse or contrary to law.
10. Resultantly, in absence of any substantial question of law this second
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
