Madhya Pradesh High Court
Janakraj Singh Tiwari vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 June, 2024
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2024
SECOND APPEAL No. 3318 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. JANAKRAJ SINGH TIWARI S/O LATE SHRI UDAY PAL
SINGH TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION
- AGRICULTURIST.
2. TILAKGANJ SINGH TIWARI S/O LATE UDAY PAL SINGH
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE
3. PUSHPARAJ SINGH TIWARI S/O LATE UDAY PAL SINGH
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE
4. HANSHRAJ SINGH TIWARI S/O LATE UDAY PAL SINGH
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE
ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PURWA 381 TEHSIL GURH,
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI M.P. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR
REWA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL - GURH, DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SHESHMANI S/O PHULLE KOL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE PURWA, TEHSIL-GURH, DISTT. REWA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH
Signing time: 6/19/2024
4:10:23 PM
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJEEV PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1
AND 2 AND NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 12.03.2024
Pronounced on : 18.06.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
1) This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs
basically to get declaration of title on adverse possession.
2) In very brief, the appellant/ plaintiff Janakraj Singh Tiwari filed
Civil Suit No.112A/2009 (Janakraj Singh Tiwari and others Vs. State of
M.P. and others) in the Court of learned Second Civil Judge, Class II,
Rewa, District Rewa against State of M.P. and others in which defendant
No.3 was Shehmani. The suit was regarding land situated in village Purwa,
Tehsil Gudh, District Rewa, land survey No. 976, area 1.03 acres and land
survey No. 983/1, area 0.37 acres for declaration of title, possession and
preventing defendants from entering the possession of plaintiffs along with
cancellation of Patta to defendant No.3 against the plaintiff.
3) The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land was originally in the
name of Brijbhan Singh and after his death, the land came into the
possession and ownership of Udaypal Singh Tiwari, father of plaintiffs No.
1 to 4.The land was recorded in their name. After the death of father of the
plaintiffs, even then the possession of the plaintiffs was being recorded in
the revenue record in the suit land but somewhere in the year 1973 to 74
land was registered in the name of State of M.P. but by which order this
was shown could not be known. After the year 1979-80 although the
government was recorded as owner of the suit property in the revenue
record but possession was recorded by Patwari in the name of father of the
plaintiffs. Thereafter, the government allotted the suit land to defendant
No.3 but the plaintiffs were not heard. Even if title of the plaintiffs is
imperfect even then they are owner of the suit property by adverse
possession.
4) The defendants No. 1 and 2 did not file written statement in the trial
Court. Defendant No.3 filed written statement contesting the suit and
submitted that the originally the land belonged to Pawaidar Brijbhushan
Singh Tiwari and land was abandoned because it was hit by the provisions
of Ceiling Act and no one tilled the land but subsequently, defendant No.3
was allotted Patta. It is further submitted by defendant No.3 that Patwari
never had any right to record possession of the plaintiff.
5) The trial Court framed issues and except the issues of Court fees, all
other issues were decided against the plaintiffs including issue of adverse
possession.
6) In the trial Court, plaintiff Janakraj Singh Tiwari, Ramkumar,
Jagatbhan Shukla appeared as plaintiff witness and after remand of the
case, Ramyash were examined as witness. Defendants No. 1 to 3 never
examined any witness on their behalf.
7) The trial Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence including
oral and documentary evidence held that no clear pleadings have been
made about adverse possession and dismissed the suit.
8) The trial Court in para 27 of the judgment also held that earlier the
Patwari had a right to record the possession of any person after enquiring
as to whether any hut, well or trees are planted on the suit land. The trial
Court in paragraph 30 also held that State Government vide notification
dated 3284 - 379 - 9 / 66 dated 25.11.1966 and amended notification No.
956-3550-9 dated 16.04.1971 certain guidelines have been framed by
which in remark column, Patwari was not allowed to record the possession
of any person except the person who was having a title but he has to keep a
separate register and record the entries regarding encroachment therein and
if Patwari has not followed this rule, then under Section 114(e) of the
Evidence Act and Section 117 of the M.P.L.R.C., it does not have any
evidentiary value.
9) It is also seen that certain certified copies from government were not
produced but uncertified copies were exhibited by the plaintiff and
ultimately the suit was dismissed and appeal No. 16/2015 was also
dismissed on 7.9.2015.
10) Before this Court, it is stated that when challenge was not made by
the opposite party then suit should have been decreed on adverse
possession.
11) Considered the arguments and perused the record. Ex. P/9 Khasra
Panchshala for the year 1999-2000 is not a certified copy but is issued by
Patwari. Similarly Ex. P/10 Khasra Panchshala for the year 2001-02 is not
a certified copy but has been issued by Patwari. When the case is based on
revenue entries, it was compulsory for the plaintiff/ appellant to call for the
original revenue record and call the concerned revenue authority to prove
his case by proving revenue entries but that has not been done and this is
fatal to the case of the plaintiff/ appellant in the facts of the case. Both the
Courts have considered all the pleadings, evidence and in civil cases even
complete absence of the defendant is not sufficient for grant of decree as
Plaintiff has to prove his case, even if defendant has been ex-parte,
therefore, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
12) The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact is
well defined by catena of decisions of Supreme Court. This Court in
exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can
interfere with the finding of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse
or based on no evidence. See. Narayanan Rajendran and another Vs.
Lekshmy Sarojni and others (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hafazat Hussain Vs.
Abdul Majeed and others (2011) 7 SCC 189, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim
Uddin and another, (2012) 8 SCC 148, D.R. Rathna Murthy Vs.
Ramappa (2011) 1 SCC 158, Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishnath
Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288 and Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape (dead)
by LR Vs. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare (dead) by LRs. and Others,
(2013) 7 SCC 173.
13) For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises
for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of this judgment along with the record be sent back to the
concerned Court.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VSG
