Ramsingh vs Bherusingh And 2 Ors.
2024 Latest Caselaw 12322 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramsingh vs Bherusingh And 2 Ors. on 2 May, 2024

Author: Hirdesh

Bench: Hirdesh

                                                        1

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT I N D O R E
                                                    BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

                                           ON THE 2nd OF MAY, 2024

                                       SECOND APPEAL No. 233 of 2012

                         BETWEEN:-
                         RAMSINGH S/O DEVAJI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                         AGRICULTURE VILLAGE PALSAWAD SON PARGANA, DISTRICT
                         SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                            .....APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
                         (SHRI VIJAYENDRA PANWAL, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT)

                         AND
                            BHERUSINGH S/O DHULJI, AGED 36 YEARS, VILLAGE
                         1. PALSAWAD SON PARGANA, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
                            PRADESH)
                            SAMRIBAI W/O LATE DHULJI GURJAR, AGED 76 YEARS,
                         2. VILLAGE PALSAWAD, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
                            PRADESH)
                            THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH COLLECTOR,
                         3.
                            DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                     .....RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
                         (SHRI CHETAN JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
                               This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed
                         the following:-

                                                   ORDER

Appellant/plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed by District Judge, Shajapur (MP) in Regular Civil Appeal No.18-A/2011 arising

out of the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2011 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.21-A/2010 by Civil Judge, Class II, Shajapur, by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the civil suit for declaration of title that disputed land situated in village Palsawadson. The father of plaintiff, grand father of respondent No.1 and father in law of respondent No.2 Devaji purchased disputed land fifty years ago. The father of plaintiff was also possessed others agriculture land. In the life of father of plaintiff divided his whole land between the plaintiff, respondents No.1 and 2. After partition, the disputed land was given to plaintiff and after that plaintiff possessed disputed land and have used the same. On 31.05.1995, plaintiff got loan from bank and digging Well on the disputed land. After the death of his father without informing and consent of plaintiff, Patwari of the Gram has mentioned the name of respondents No.1 and 2 on disputed land. Respondents No.1 and 2 trying to dispossessed the plaintiff of disputed land so that he can file a suit for declaring owner of disputed land.

(3) The respondents/defendants had filed the written statement and denied the averments made by the appellant/plaintiff and has stated that the disputed land given to father of plaintiff for his maintenance in his life. After the death of Devaji, plaintiff and respondents was partition as ½. On this

basis, respondent No.1 and 2 filed application before the revenue inspector for partition. After investigation, the revenue inspector divided the disputed land and entry of their name on the revenue paper and also given possession of disputed land. On the above ground, the suit of plaintiff was dismissed.

(4) The trial court has framed the issues and on the basis of pleadings and after taking the evidence has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on 21.04.2011.

(5) Being aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintiff has filed the appeal before the first appellate court and the first appellate has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. He further submits that both the courts below have committed grave error in dismissing the suit and appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff. Thus, on the basis of above grounds, substantial question of law arises for consideration in second appeal and prays that appeal be admitted for final hearing.

(6) I have heard counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and have perused the records of the case with due care.

(7) From the perusal of record of trial court, it appears that the appellant/plaintiff has filed the civil suit for declaration of title and therefore the burden lies upon the appellant/plaintiff to prove his case that he acquired the title of suit land by way of adverse possession.

(8) The law with regard to perfecting title by adverse possession is well settled. A person claiming title by adverse possession has to prove three "neck" - nec vi, nec clam and nec precario. In other words, he must show that his possession is adequate in continuity in publicity and in extent. Adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at the least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found.

(9) It is stated that the appellant/plaintiff has deposed before the trial court that he had possession of disputed property since last forty years and his father got the property by way of partition and his right was accrued by way of adverse possession. It appears that the disputed land was in the name of Ramsingh and Dhoolsingh, so the name has been jointly recorded. The plaintiff has been unable to adduce the substantial evidence before the trial court that he is the sole possession holder of the disputed land and therefore on the basis of aforesaid documents filed by appellant, he has failed to prove that he is the sole possession holder of the disputed property. Therefore the trial court and first appellate court has given the concurrent findings that plaintiff has failed to prove the adverse possession over the perfected title by adverse possession.

(10) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgments passed by trial

court and first appellate court are well reasoned and based upon the due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. The findings recorded by trial court and first appellate court are concurrent findings of facts. The appellant/plaintiff has failed to show that how the findings of facts recorded by trial court and first appellate court are illegal, perverse and based on no evidence. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal.

(11) Accordingly, the present second appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

(12) Certified copy, as per Rules.

                                                                                    (HIRDESH)
                         Arun/-                                                       JUDGE