Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 237 (MP)

Bal Kishan v. State of M. P.

2014-02-25

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
ORDER 1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6.4.2004 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge Ganj Basoda in Civil Appeal No.125A of 2003 affirming the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2003 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Class I, Ganj Basoda in Civil Suit No.67A of 2001 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title against the defendant was dismissed. In this appeal, the appellant is referred to as “plaintiff” and the respondent as “defendant”. 2. The facts in brief of the case are that out of the reserved Charnoi land bearing Survey No.862/4 area 8.948 Hectares situated in village Bardha, the plaintiff has been in possession of Survey No.2.090 Hectares land (which hereinafter would be referred to as the “disputed land”), declared Kabil Kasht vide Tehsil notification dated 1.5.2001 for more than 30 years and cultivating the same within the knowledge of the defendant/state. It was never vested in the Government but the name of plaintiff could not be recorded as Bhumi Swami in the revenue record. As he has been cultivating the disputed land for more than 30 years, he has acquired title to it by way of adverse possession. The defendant has no right and title to dispossess the plaintiff of the land in dispute. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the relief stated above. 3. The defendant/State by filing the written statement denied averments made in the plaint stating that the land in dispute is a Government land and the plaintiff has failed to disclose origin of his title. The land in dispute has been recorded as reserved Charnoi and vested in the Government. The plaintiff has not been in possession of the same for more than 30 years and the status of the plaintiff was also that of encroacher. The land has never been recorded in the name of plaintiff as of holder of it's Bhumi Swami and possession. Since the suit filed by the plaintiff is based on the incorrect facts, it was prayed that the suit filed by him be dismissed. 4. After framing of one 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 defendant as stated above. 5. Since the suit filed by the plaintiff is based on the incorrect facts, it was prayed that the suit filed by him be dismissed. 4. After framing of one 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 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 parties and perused the record. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant 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 plaintiff has 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 plaintiff/appellant was found by both the Courts below but in spite of that fact both the Courts below have dismissed the suit for injunction. The said relief ought to have been granted for protection of possession. 8. The plaintiff has claimed his title to the disputed land on the basis of adverse possession for more than 30 years, however, he has not produced any document showing his possession as pleaded in the plaint. Only one document of Khasra Ex.P/1 of year 2000-2001 has been produced on record in which, the disputed land shown as that of Charnoi has been stated to be of the ownership of Government. The status of the plaintiff is here that of an encroacher. The story of adverse possession put forth by the plaintiff appears to be bugus and baseless. In this regard, both the learned Courts below having discussed the evidence on record, have justly dismissed the suit. No error has been found in their findings as they are concurrent on facts. The plaintiff being encroacher is not entitled to get injunction for protection of possession. In this appeal, no substantial question of law crops up for consideration. 9. Therefore, the appeal being meritless and insubstantial, is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to the cost.