Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 235 (MP)

Madan Mohan v. State of M. P.

2014-02-25

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
ORDER 1. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2004 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge Gohad District Bhind in Civil Appeal No.30 of 2002 affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2002 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Class I, Gohad in Civil Suit No.6A of 2000 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants was dismissed. In this appeal, the appellants are referred to as “plaintiffs” and the respondents as “defendants”. 2. The facts in brief of the case are that the land bearing Survey No.2658/3, 4 and 5 (which hereinafter would be referred to as the “disputed land”) has been in possession of the predecessor of the plaintiffs', Kashiram since the time of Zamindari i.e. 2.10.1951. After abolition of Zamindari, their names were recorded in the revenue records as pakka krishak. But now the defendant No.1 has wrongly recorded the plaintiffs as encroaches and illegally allotted the same on patta to the uncle of plaintiffs i.e. defendant No.2, hence, the plaintiffs served a notice under section 80 of CPC upon the defendant No.1 stating that the plaintiffs be declared bhumi swami in possession of the suit land and patta of the disputed land issued in favour of the defendant No.2 be cancelled. But since the defendant No.1 is illegally interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs, hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for the relief stated above. 3. The defendant No.1/State by filing the written statement denied averments made in the plaint stating that the land in dispute was a government land which was given on lease to the defendant No.2 in the year 1960 and possession was delivered to him. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable as it is barred by section 57 (2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Since the suit filed by the plaintiffs is based on the incorrect facts, it was prayed that the suit filed by him be dismissed. Almost the similar written statement was filed by the defendant No.2 except that the suit of the plaintiffs was not maintainable under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as no proceedings were initiated before the Sub Divisional Officer. 4. Almost the similar written statement was filed by the defendant No.2 except that the suit of the plaintiffs was not maintainable under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as no proceedings were initiated before the Sub Divisional Officer. 4. After framing of eight issue, recording evidence of both the parties and having considered the recorded evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants as stated above. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, the plaintiffs 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 parties and perused the record. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the Courts below have committed error in dismissing the suit of plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction even though the plaintiffs have been in adverse possession of the disputed land for more than 30 years within the knowledge of the defendant. Learned counsel further argued that possession of the plaintiffs/appellants were found by both the Courts below but in spite of the fact that both the Courts below have committed error in dismissing the suit for injunction. The said relief ought to have been granted for protection of possession. 8. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 9. The plaintiffs' claim is based on two grounds:- (i) he has been cultivating the land since 2.10.51 from feudal times, on the basis of which, he has got the title to Bhumiswami in the disputed land (ii) he has been in adverse possession of the land for more than 30 years. However, they have not produced any document in support of their claim as pleaded in the plaint. Khasra entries from Samvat 1951 to 2036 have not been produced for corroborating their title. The disputed land has been stated in Khasra Ex-P/3 of samvat 2036 to 2040 and Ex-P/5 of Samvat 2025 as Government land. In view of the said facts, the government had full right to allot the disputed land on lease to the defendant No.2. The validity of the said lease was not challenged by the plaintiffs before any competent revenue authority prior to filing of this suit. Moreover, the plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove their title and settled possession. 10. In view of the said facts, the government had full right to allot the disputed land on lease to the defendant No.2. The validity of the said lease was not challenged by the plaintiffs before any competent revenue authority prior to filing of this suit. Moreover, the plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove their title and settled possession. 10. Although, the findings recorded by both the Courts regarding maintainability of the suit are not appropriate in respect of jurisdiction of civil Court for declaration of title under section 57(2) of MPLRC as it has been held by full Bench of this Court in the judgment of State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh, 2001 RN 343 = 2001 (2) MPLJ 644 that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is not barred yet both the Courts having discussed the evidence on merit also have concluded that the plaintiffs have no Bhumiswami rights in the disputed land. The findings recorded by both the Courts appears to be appropriate. Since findings of both the Courts are concurrent on facts and no substantial question of law arises here in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost.