Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1154 (MP)

Babu Singh v. Ramjanki

2015-11-05

R.S.JHA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2003, passed by the First Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur in C.A.No.17-A/2002 affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.2.2002, passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Laudi, District Chhatarpur in C.S.No.73-A/1989 whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the appellants asserted that they were in possession of the land bearing Khasra No.521, area 3.20 decimal situated at village Ghathari, Tahsil Gourihar, District Chhatarpur since Samvat 2013. It was asserted that the land has been given in sub-lease to them by the original owner Gajadhar on the condition that they would continue to deposit land revenue. It was stated that the appellants were in possession of the land since then which matured into Bhumiswami rights in view of“the provisions of sections 190/110 of the MPLR Code. 3. It was asserted that the the respondent tried to dispossess the appellant on 20.8.1989 on account of which the appellants were forced to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In the suit it was alleged that the appellants had acquired Bhumiswami rights as they were in possession of the land since long and, therefore, perfected their title on account of adverse possession and that they were continuously cultivating the land in dispute and, therefore, they were entitled to injunction. 4. Both the Courts below have found that the appellants had not produced any document of title or document of lease alleged to have been executed by Gajadhar to indicate the nature of possession and they have also not proved or established that they were in possession of the land in dispute since Samvat 2013, except for producing documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 which are the Khasra entries. Both the Courts below have held that the appellants have failed to establish their possession on the land in dispute or that they have perfected their title by adverse possession and have dismissed the suit. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Courts below have totally ignored the import and impact of documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 and, therefore, committed perversity. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Courts below have totally ignored the import and impact of documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 and, therefore, committed perversity. It is submitted that the names of the appellants were mentioned in relevant column of Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 indicating possession of the appellants and, therefore, the appellants were apparently in possession of the land, in dispute and were entitled to be declared as Bhumiswami of the land and were also entitled to injunction. It is stated that the aforesaid omission on the part of the Court below amounts to perversity giving rise to a substantial question of law for adjudication in the present appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and after perusing the record, it is observed that both the Courts below have extensively examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. Undisputedly, no document of title has been filed by the appellants. It is also admitted that no receipt for payment of land revenue or rent has been filed by the appellants. The entire suit is based upon the documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 which are Khasra entries. These Khasra entries have been extensively examined by the Court below in paragraph 10 of the appellate Court's“judgment as well as by the trial Court in its judgment. 7. Both the Courts below have found that there are interpolations in the Khasra entries and the names of the appellants have been entered in a different ink. Quite apart from the above, the Courts below have also examined statements of Shatrughan (PW2) and Bachchu Singh (PW3) and found that they were 20 and 10 years of age at that time and that their statements were not reliable on account of contradictions and, therefore, when the statement was read alongwith the document, it did not render any assistance to the appellants. The Courts below have found that the name of the respondent has also been mentioned in the revenue records, Ex.P-2 and the name of deceased Gajadhar has also been mentioned in Khasra entries Ex.P-3. On analysis, the Courts below have held that the appellants have failed to prove their possession over the property. The Courts below have found that the name of the respondent has also been mentioned in the revenue records, Ex.P-2 and the name of deceased Gajadhar has also been mentioned in Khasra entries Ex.P-3. On analysis, the Courts below have held that the appellants have failed to prove their possession over the property. The Courts below have also recorded a finding to the effect that the appellants have failed to prove and establish the date from which possession of the appellants became open, hostile and adverse and, therefore, rejected the claim of the appellants regarding adverse possession. 8. The aforesaid concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below on the basis of oral and documentary evidence onrecord does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and no substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the present appeal. It is settled law that this Court is not required to reopen concurrent findings of fact in second appeal in the absence of any perversity as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Narayan Rajendran and another v. Lekshmy Sarojini and others [ (2009)5 SCC 264 ], Nafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed and others [(2011)7 SCC 189 and D. R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa [ (2011)1 SCC 158 ] and Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal [ (2012)7 SCC 288 ], Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another [ (2012)8 SCC 148 ], Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape (dead) by LR v. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare (dead) by LRs. and others [ (2013)7 SCC 173 ]. 9. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs being meritless is accordingly dismissed.