UMA SHANKAR SHUKLA Vs. LALITA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant defendant's first appeal filed under Section 96 of the C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th June, 2002 passed by the District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.72-A/99.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) Shri V. G. Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, vehemently argued: appellants are in exclusive and continuous possession of the suit house for a period of more than 20 years and they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession over the suit house; whether the nature of appellants' possession over suit house was permissive or adverse was not directly and substantially in issue in the earlier civil Suit No.1-A/1978 filed by the appellants against the plaintiff and her father Sheoshankar Shukla, therefore, the finding of appellants' possession as permissive possession recorded by the High Court in the First Appeal No. 24/1982 arising out of Civil Suit No.1/A/1978 does not operate as res judicata in the instant case. It was further contended, the Panch Faisla dated 10.04.1974 (Annexure P-1) though not admissible for want of registration as held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in First Appeal No. 24/1982 and affirmed by the Division Bench of High Court of M.P. in L.P.A. No.83/1988, is admissible for collateral purposes, i.e., to prove nature and character of appellants' possession. The trial Court, ignoring all above facts, has erroneously decreed the suit and the judgment and decree deserves to be set aside.