GRAMIN VIKAS SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. BHIKSHUK @ BISKUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt.22.12.2006 passed by the Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2004 whereby the appeal was dismissed. The said appeal arose from the judgment and decree dt.16.3.2004 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2000 by Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gadchiroli whereby the suit was decreed and the defendants were directed to deliver possession of the suit land bearing Survey No.244, area 0.80 hectors situated at village Rangi, Tq. Dhanora, District Gadchiroli.

(2.) The suit afore-mentioned was instituted seeking the relief of possession, damages as well as inquiry into mesne profit. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the suit property and also relied upon a map filed along with the plaint. The plaintiff had alleged that there was encroachment made by or on behalf of the defendants and the plaintiff came to know about it in the month of May, 1993 and hence, he objected the act of encroachment by the defendants and also called upon the defendants to remove the encroachment. The grievance of the appellants is that, in the trial Court, though the suit was filed on the basis of title seeking the reliefs of possession, damages and mesne profit, the trial Court did not grant sufficient opportunity to the defendants to crossexamine the plaintiff and it went ahead to record finding in favour of the plaintiff in respect of alleged title to the suit land as also in respect of alleged wrongful possession of the defendants since the month of April, 1993. The appellants have, therefore, contended that failure of justice has occurred and substantial questions of law, as stated in the appeal, arise as it was necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove how the plaintiff secured title to the suit land. It was also necessary to consider as to whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to grant decree against a public trust without joining all the trustees as defendants. Further, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, question as to whether the plaintiff possesses valid and legal title to the suit land cannot be decided merely on the basis of revenue entries as they by themselves do not convey or extinguish title. In this regard, reference is made by the learned Counsel for the appellants to the ruling in the case of Mahila Bajrangi (Dead) through L.Rs. and Others .vs. Badribai w/o. Jagannath and another, 2003 2 SCC 464. My attention is invited to the observations made in para 6 of the ruling that " That mutation proceedings before the Revenue Authorities are not judicial proceedings in any Court of law and does not decide questions of title to immovable property is a trite position and principle of law.

(3.) On the other hand, however, the learned Counsel for the respondent (original plaintiff) supported the impugned judgments and orders and has prayed that the instant appeal be dismissed.