VISHAN SINGH Vs. KAILASH NARAYAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the Appellant/Plaintiff under Section 100 of C. P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1998 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Vidisha Camp Basoda (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 15-A/98 by which the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II Ganj-Basoda in Civil Suit No. 240-A/76 was affirmed. The Appellant filed a Civil Suit before the lower Court for declaration and permanent injunction which was dismissed by both the Courts below. Being aggrieved by the decision of dismissal of Civil Suit and Civil Appeal, the present Appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The fact of the case are that in village Mohaniya Khedi, Tehsil Basoda, Land bearing Khasra No. 19 Rakwa, 4 Beegha and 11 Biswa [Old No. 37 Rakwa, 4 Beegha and 11 Biswa] was belonged to Mulli, Raghunath, Bhamra, Hari Singh and Udham Singh who were Bhumiswami of the land. The Respondents have purchased the said land by the Respondents in the year 1967 and also mutated in their names. The case of the Appellant is that he is in possession over the suit land for more than 20 years with the knowledge of the original title-in-predecessor and acquired adverse possession and also title over the suit land. The Respondents were trying to dispossess the Appellant, hence, the suit was filed. In the written statement, Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 denied the contention of the Appellant. It is also denied that Appellant acquired title over the suit land in adverse possession. It is also pleaded that as there was no dispossession of the Appellant from the suit land, therefore, question of dispossession does not arise.

(3.) The learned trial Court framed the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The suit of the Plaintiff on the basis of adverse possession is not proved by the Appellant, but Issue No. 3, however, that the Respondents were trying to dispossess the Appellant was decided in favour of the Appellant. As the Plaintiff has not been able to establish his title over the suit property on the basis of adverse possession, the suit was dismissed by the Court below. First Appellate Court also affirmed the judgment and decree of the lower Court and dismissed the appeal, hence, this Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant before this Court.