STATE OF M P Vs. RAMKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected first Appeal No. 178/97 as both these appeals involve common questions of law and facts. This appeal under section 96 of CP. Code is by plaintiff State of M.P. against the dismissal of their suit by judgment and decree dt. 14.2.97 passed in C.S. No. 19-A/91 by XI Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge Indore. In order to appreciate the real issue involved in these 2 appeals and how this litigation started at the instance of State, which eventually led to filing of these 2 appeals, it is most essential to narrate the entire factual back ground of this litigation which has a chequered history behind it.

(2.) THE dispute in these two appeals revolve around to a land bearing Kh. Nos. 217/1,217/2, 218, 206/1, 206/2, 209 and 212 total area 11.96 acres situated in what is known as Gadra Khedi, opposite Kila maidan in the city of Indore. This land belongs to State. The respondent No. 1 now represented by legal representatives in these 2 appeals claimed themselves to be the government lessees and actual physical possession since last about 35 years on payment of yearly rent of Rs. 375 to State. The respondents claimed that they have constructed a small house (Taparia) over these lands and are living therein alongwith their family members.

(3.) ON 14.4.67 both the respondents i.e. Ramkishan and Babulal who are real brothers being the sons of Gangaram filed a Civil Suit being C.S. No. 122-A/67 (Ex. P-6) against the State in the Court of Vth C.J. Class II Indore claiming declaration of their ownership of the suit land and also claimed injunction restraining the State in interfering in their possession. The suit was in substance founded on the allegations that the orders passed by the various revenue authorities referred supra are void, inoperative and that plaintiffs are and continue to be the Government lessees of the land in suit. It was alleged that the State has only the right to recover the yearly rent from the plaintiffs of the land in question. It was alleged that cause of action to file suit accrued on various dates when the orders were passed by Revenue Authorities. Essentially on these facts, the plaintiff claimed a declaration that they are not the trespassers on the land as held by Revenue authorities but they be declared as Government lessees. It was also claimed that State has no right to claim possession unless and until, the lease is properly determinated in accordance with law. The plaintiffs as stated supra also claimed permanent injunction restraining the state and their authorities from taking possession of land from plaintiff on the strength of orders passed by Revenue Authorities.