Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 181 (MP)

Ramswaroop (D) Th. L. Rs. v. State of M. P.

2014-02-11

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Heard on the question of admission. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.9.2009 passed by the Court of IV ADJ, Gwalior in First Appeal No.10 of 2009, confirming the judgment and decree dated 2.2.2009 passed by the court of I Civil Judge 2, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.56A of 2008 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed holding that the plaintiff has failed to produce any document in support of his claim. In this appeal, the appellants are referred to as “plaintiffs” and the respondent as “defendant”. 2. The facts in brief of the plaint are that the plot in dispute situated near Pawar Sahab Ka Bada, Naka Chandravadani, Gwalior (hereinafter would be referred to as “disputed land”) was purchased by the father of the plaintiff from one Sadashivrao in the year 1950 vide unregistered sale deed dated 23.6.1960 and obtained possession thereof. During his lifetime, father of the plaintiff executed a Will dated 26.6.1970 in his favour in respect of the disputed plot and thereafter he died on 22.11.1972. Since then the plaintiff has been in possession of the said plot and his name has been recorded as owner of the said land in the revenue record. Thereafter, in order to make construction over the said land, the plaintiff applied for permission before Nagar Palika which was refused, hence, he filed a Civil Suit bearing No.50A of 2001 which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and he was declared Bhumiswami in possession of the said plot. Thereafter, in the appeal filed by the Nagar Palika, the appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of learned trial Court on the ground that the disputed land being government land, State of M.P was a necessary party in the matter. The said judgment and decree was also upheld by this Court in second appeal. Hence, now impleading the State of M.P as a party in the matter, the suit claiming the relief as stated herein above was filed. 3. The defendant/State in spite of being served notices to appear before the court neither appeared nor filed any written statement, hence, the matter was proceeded ex parte. 4. Hence, now impleading the State of M.P as a party in the matter, the suit claiming the relief as stated herein above was filed. 3. The defendant/State in spite of being served notices to appear before the court neither appeared nor filed any written statement, hence, the matter was proceeded ex parte. 4. After framing of the three issues, recording evidence of both the parties and having considered the recorded evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant as stated above. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal has been filed as stated herein above. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the learned courts below have not properly considered the evidence produced by the plaintiff, owing to which the judgments passed by them deserve to the set aside. The learned counsel further puts forth that the disputed land was purchased by the predecessor in title, Pancham Singh from Sadashivrao vide unregistered sale deed dated 23.6.50 Ex-P/1 however, both the learned courts below have refused to acknowledge the title and possession of the appellants/plaintiffs. Apart from this, the plaintiffs have paid the property tax of the said property to the respondent and receipts have been produced on record in this regard, nonetheless they have been discarded by both the courts arbitrarily. The counsel further argued that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the land for a long period i.e. more than 50 years as settled possession, owing to which, the decree for permanent injunction ought to have been granted for protection of the possession of the plaintiffs. 8. The arguments were considered. As per contention of the appellants” counsel the disputed property was purchased vide Ex-P/1 which is not registered document. Though the value of the land has been mentioned only as Rs.90/- in Ex-P/1, the said document was required to be registered as per Section 54 of the T.P. Act. 8. The arguments were considered. As per contention of the appellants” counsel the disputed property was purchased vide Ex-P/1 which is not registered document. Though the value of the land has been mentioned only as Rs.90/- in Ex-P/1, the said document was required to be registered as per Section 54 of the T.P. Act. Under which, it has been stated that a document for sale of the immovable property having value less than Rs.100/- is written, it must be registered, failing which, the said document cannot be admitted in evidence as held in the judgment of the case of Davendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 2002 Rajasthan 66. 9. Considering the aforesaid provision, it is concluded that the alleged sale deed Ex-P/1 does not have any legal propriety to prove the title and possession of the plaintiffs. Besides it, the plaintiffs have not mentioned any survey number of the plot in the plaint. Whereas the survey number 12 has been mentioned in Ex-P/1. If the disputed land is the part of survey number 12 why it was not specifically stated in the plaint. The aforesaid facts give rise to suspicion regarding the story narrated by the plaintiffs. No such document has ever been produced on record to prove the ownership of the predecessor of the plaintiffs i.e. vendor Sadashivrao. As per the khasra entries the survey number 12 has been recorded as “sadak” which indicates the ownership of the State Government. 10. On perusal of the record, it has been found that that the plaintiff had already filed a suit bearing No.50A/2001 for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. The said suit was dismissed by this court vide order dated 23.2.2007 in S.A. No.130/03 wherein this court has held that the land in question is a Government land. The said findings have become final. It is evident here that the plaintiff had utterly failed to have proved his title and legal possession on the disputed land also in the earlier litigation. 11. After the consideration of the judgments of both the courts below, it has been found that having considered the recorded evidence both the learned courts have rightly concluded that the plaintiff has failed to have proved the ownership and possession to the disputed land. 11. After the consideration of the judgments of both the courts below, it has been found that having considered the recorded evidence both the learned courts have rightly concluded that the plaintiff has failed to have proved the ownership and possession to the disputed land. In view of the aforesaid facts, no substantial question of law crops up for admission in this appeal. Since both the courts have concurrence in their findings, the appeal being devoid of merit and concrete substance deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.