Jagdeesh vs Nagar Parishad Gairatganj
2025 Latest Caselaw 4673 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jagdeesh vs Nagar Parishad Gairatganj on 21 February, 2025

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8330




                                                                1                               SA-2902-2023
                                IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
                                                  ON THE 21st OF FEBRUARY, 2025
                                                  SECOND APPEAL No. 2902 of 2023
                                                  JAGDEESH AND OTHERS
                                                          Versus
                                          NAGAR PARISHAD GAIRATGANJ AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the appellants.
                                Shri Himanshu Mishra - Advocate for the respondents.

                                                               JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed by the appellants / plaintiffs who have lost in both the Courts. It is submitted that finding of the First Appellate Court that the suit is time-barred is erroneous as the trial Court did not find the suit time barred.

2. Both the Courts over-looked adverse possession of the last thirty years and even for argument sake considering that it was permissible possession then also contradictory pleadings can be raised in the light of judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in Praful Manohar Rele Vs. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and others, (2014)11 SCC 316.

3. The suit of the plaintiff bearing Civil Suit No. 13-A/2020 (Jagdish and others Vs. Nagar Parishad Gairatganj and others ) for the suit property situated in Tahsil Raisen regarding declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and for execution of registered exchange deed and for declaration that order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Tahsildar is not binding on the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8330

2 SA-2902-2023 plaintiff was rejected. The appeal No. 6/2022 filed by the appellant was also rejected vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2023.

4. In very brief the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that he had exchanged his land with the Panchayat so that road could be made. The Panchayat had agreed that they would give land in exchange, therefore, he came into possession on the land of the State Government under Panchayat, Tahsil Begumganj, District Raisen.

5. Perused the record and considered the arguments.

6. In the considered view of this Court there was no power with the Panchayat to exchange the land. It could have been done only with the permission of the Collector, which was not sought. As correctly recorded by

the trial Court in paragraph 19 of the judgment, plaintiff P.W.1 Jagdish admitted that from 1985 to 2008 he did not file any suit on the basis of exchange of land document Ex. P/1. He neither gave any notice to the Government body. Ex. P/1 document is certified copy of a handwritten Panchnama, which is unregistered document, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case no right can be accrued simply on the basis of this unregistered document. Permission of the Collector is not there and only Collector is competent under this situation to grant permission as per law. It is seen that all the factual and legal situations have been considered by both the Courts. There is no substantial question of law on which this appeal can be admitted as ultimately no relief can be granted to the plaintiff as sought.

7. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the findings of fact is well defined by catena of decisions of Supreme Court.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8330

3 SA-2902-2023 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.

8. For the aforementioned reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Let copy of this order along with the record be sent back to the concerned Court.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

VSG