Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1081 (MP)

Prayag Sharma v. State of M. P.

2014-08-28

R.S.JHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2001 passed by 10th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Appeal No.134-A/2000 whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.4.1998 passed in Civil Suit No.439-A/1998 by 4th Civil Judge, Class-1, Jabalpur has been affirmed and confirmed and the suit filed by the appellant for declaration of title in respect of 9 decimal of land comprising of khasra No.154 of Village Ranipur has been dismissed. 3. The suit was filed by the appellant contending that he had entered in to an agreement on 10.5.1971 for purchase of the land in question with the erstwhile owner Late Shyamji Shukla and thereafter had entered possession on the land in question. It is contended that in view of the aforesaid circumstance, he be declared as owner and title holder of the land in question. The appellant had also claimed that he has perfected his title on the ground of adverse possession. 4. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact against the appellant to the effect that the appellant had not acquired title on the land in question in the absence of any document of title and has also not perfected his right on the strength of adverse possession as there is no proper pleading or proof in that regard. 5. The appellant being aggrieved has filed this appeal and has raised the aforementioned two substantial questions of law before this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, it is observed that it is an undisputed and admitted fact that the appellant is claiming title on the strength of agreement dated 10.5.1971. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding to the effect that the agreement does not confer any title and mere execution of agreement would not confer any rights of ownership on the appellant. I am of the considered opinion that the aforesaid finding is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference in view of the settled law in this regard. 7. I am of the considered opinion that the aforesaid finding is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference in view of the settled law in this regard. 7. As far as the next contention of appellant regarding perfection of title on the land in question on account of adverse possession is concerned, both the Courts below have negated the claim of the appellant by recording a finding to the effect that as per the case of appellant himself, he was put in possession pursuant to the agreement and his possession was permissive and therefore he cannot claim land on adverse possession was untenable. 8. Quite apart from the above, the Courts below have also recorded a finding that the land in question was actually recorded as government land and there is no pleading or proof on the part of the appellant as to how and when his possession became open hostile and adverse to the rights of the true owner. It is settled law that in absence of proper pleading and proof, a claim based on adverse possession cannot be allowed to stand. 9. In the circumstances, it is apparent that there is no perversity in the findings recorded against the appellant by the Courts below. I do not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below as no substantial question of law arises for adjudication. 10. The appeal being meritless, is accordingly dismissed.