BALKRISHAN Vs. SATYAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Gwalior) in Civil Second Appeal No. 161 of 1991 dated September 1, 1994. The plaintiff in the suit (Case No. 51-A/86 in the Court of Second Civil Judge Class I, Guna, Madhya Pradesh) is the appellant. He laid the suit for declaration of his title on the ground that by adverse possession he perfected his title to the agriculture land bearing Survey No. 1216, admeasuring 1.902-hectares (Khasara No. 1216 area 9 bighas 2 bisvas) situated in village Guna, Tehsil and District Guna, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as, 'the suit land') and for permanent injunction against respondents Nos. 1 to 4 on December 6, 1986.

(2.) The following facts need to be noticed for understanding the controversy between the parties. The appellant claimed that he purchased the suit land for consideration of Rs. 451/- from Sukhlal and Phulchand who were said to be the owners thereof on August 25, 1960. The suit land was under attachment by orders of the Tehsildar, Guna and in the auction that followed the attachment, one Mohan Singh purchased it in the name of his minor son Rajendra Singh in 1963. Rajendra Singh through guardian-his father Mohan Singh-filed an application under Section 250 of Madhya Pradesh land Revenue Code, 1959, before the Tehsildar, Guna, against the appellant claiming restoration of possession of the suit land. On the alleged ground of interference in his possession, the appellant instituted a suit (for declaration praying for declaration and injunction) (Civil Suit No. 82A/64) in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, against Rajendra Singh and Mohan Singh and his vendors (Sukhlal and Phoolchand) in 1964. On December 23, 1966 the suit was dismissed holding that the sale in his favour was not valid. Notwithstanding the dismissal of that suit, he remained in possession of the suit land. On June 20, 1971, the Tehsildar ordered the appellant to put the said Rajendra Singh in possession of the suit land. Against that order the appellant filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer who dismissed the appeal on September 4, 1973. While so Rajendra Singh sold the suit land to respondents Nos. 2 and 4; respondent No. 1 is husband of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 is the husband of respondent No. 4. The appellant, however, continued to remain in the possession of the suit land. The said respondents resisted the suit denying the possession of the appellant and pleading that Mohan Singh and Rajendra Singh were in continuous possession of the suit land and that the appellant acquired no title to the suit land. They stated that the appellant failed in the Civil Court, Revenue Court, and before the Executive Magistrate and therefore that suit was also liable to be dismissed.

(3.) After considering the evidence placed before it the trial Court found that the appellant had been in continuous possession of the suit land and perfected his title by adverse possession. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed appeal (Civil Appeal No. 97-A/1990) before the IInd Additional District Judge, Guna. On 30th July, 1991, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The said respondents filed Civil Second Appeal No. 161 of 1991 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Gwalior), which was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and decree.