Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 348 (MP)

Gangaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2019-05-01

ROHIT ARYA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal by plaintiff under Section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree passed by District Judge, Mandsaur in RCA No. 204/2017 dated 22.12.2018 confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.01.02017 passed in Civil Suit No. 96-A/2016 by Civil Judge, Class-1, Narayanghar, District Mandsaur. The suit for declaration, permanent injunction and the consequential relief has been dismissed. 2. Plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration, injunction and the consequential relief inter alia contending that the suit land as described in paragraph 4 of the plaint has all along been in possession of Iliyas Mohammad s/o Abdul Hamid, Azaz Mohammad s/o Abdul Wahid Kha and Ishah Mohammad s/o Abdul Wahid Kha situated in village Bhilkhedi prior to 15/08/1947 ploughing the field and harvesting crops. Though after partition, the aforesaid persons had migrated to Pakistan but, their names continued in the revenue record as Pakka krishak. After coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959; they had acquired bhumi swami rights and accordingly, recorded in the revenue record. In the year 1973-74, three cases were registered before Tehsildar, Malharganj, viz.,01/73-74A/25, 02/73-74A/25 and 03/73-74A/25 for substituting the name of State of Madhya Pradesh in place of the aforesaid persons and since then, the suit land is shown to be that of State of Madhya Pradesh. The plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit land but, apprehending dispossession three civil suits, viz., 166A/2004, 167A/2004 and 168A/2004 were filed before the trial Court whereunder claimed that the aforesaid three persons acquired the status of upkrishak, maursi krishak and bhumi swami rights, therefore, sought for declaration of title and possession in that behalf. Out of the aforesaid three civil suits, the predecessors of plaintiff and/or plaintiff was one of the plaintiffs. All the aforesaid civil suits were dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30/11/2005. Being aggrieved thereof, three first appeals were filed, viz., 27A/, 28A and 29A of 2006 and the same were also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20/12/2008 on technical ground extending liberty to file separate suits by three individual plaintiffs. The said judgment and decree had attained finality as the same was not further challenged. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the instant suit is filed seeking title on the basis of long uninterrupted, peaceful and continuous possession over thirty years and, therefore, acquired title by adverse possession. 3. The said judgment and decree had attained finality as the same was not further challenged. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the instant suit is filed seeking title on the basis of long uninterrupted, peaceful and continuous possession over thirty years and, therefore, acquired title by adverse possession. 3. Defendants filed written statement and denied plaint allegations inter alia contending that the suit land since the year 1974 has all along been shown to be that of State Government. It is denied that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land as claimed. With the aforesaid pleadings, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. 5. Trial Court upon critical evaluation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record reached conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession over the suit land after scrutinizing the khasra panchsala/revenue record to maintain the claim of title by adverse possession. The trial Court also found that the suit is barred by time as according to the plaintiff, he is alleged to be in possession for last thirty years since the year 1947 for which cause of action had arisen on 16/08/1977 whereas the suit was filed on 05/01/2015, therefore, hit by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 6. On appeal, the first appellate Court has re-assessed the entire evidence placed on record, particular revenue record well discussed in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the judgment. The first appellate Court has also discussed the oral evidence in that behalf in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment and reached conclusion that the evidence so led is self- contradictory not establishing how the plaintiff came into possession over the suit land and the alleged claim of continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the suit land for the last thirty years. Accordingly, affirmed the findings of fact so recorded by the trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant though tried to impinge the findings of the Courts below but, has not been able to substantiate the assertions so made in the teeth of well considered impeccable findings of fact based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record. Accordingly, affirmed the findings of fact so recorded by the trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant though tried to impinge the findings of the Courts below but, has not been able to substantiate the assertions so made in the teeth of well considered impeccable findings of fact based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record. As a matter of fact, the claim of title by adverse possession even otherwise is not maintainable in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 1 SCC 669 Gurudwara Sahib Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another. Since the entire gamut of the matter is in the realm of facts and no question of law, much less; substantial question of law arises in this appeal warranting interference under Section 100 CPC, appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land, ploughing the field and harvesting crops, therefore, seeks protection. This Court refrains from commenting thereupon, it is considered apposite to observe that if the plaintiff is in physical possession over the suit land, he shall not be dispossessed from the suit land without due process of law.