STATE OF M P Vs. HEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order in Civil Appeal No. 31-A/1980 dated 1.4.1981 passed by the learned II A.D.J., Dhar who was pleased to decree the suit of the respondent No. 1 declaring that the order dated 30.12.1975 with respect to the suit land more particularly described in the plaint is not binding on respondent No. 1, the original plaintiff and that the appellant No. 2 is permanently injuncted against disturbing the possession of respondent No. 1.

(2.) THIS Court at the time of admission on 17.10.1981 framed the following substantial question of law :

(3.) EXAMINING the record alongwith the additional evidence produced before the first appellate Court the lower appellate Court does not seem to be wholly wrong in accepting the evidence orally given by the respondent No. 1 supported by his two witnesses to be in possession for more than 30 years. Over and above, the oral evidence Ex. P-1, P-2 and P-3 show that the respondent No. 1 Hema was in possession prior to the date of declaration of the surplus land under the provisions of the Act. In the appellate Court the evidence produced in the nature of Panchsala Khasra for the years 2015 to 2019 equivalent to 1956-57 onwards show that the respondent No. 1 was in possession even in those years. The evidence of the rural illiterate agriculturist has to be appreciated bearing in mind their illiteracy and poor condition to store or keep the document on record intact for so many years. They ordinarily do not always bear in mind to preserve the receipts of pay. The documents are definitely available with the Government/ appellant for hundreds of years and if any claim than that of the plaintiff has to be considered the Government should have produced the record of the previous years showing that the respondent No. 1 was never in possession much less during the relevant period.