HARI RAM Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GANJ BASODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT -appellant has preferred this appeal against judgment and decree dated 17.1.97 passed by the Additional District Judge, Vidisha, camp Ganj Basoda. Plaintiff filed the suit for restoration of possession of disputed plot admeasuring 25 x 45 ft. as per the plaint map alleging that without any right over the land the defendant had encroached the said plot. Complaint under section 187 (8) and 223 of the Municipalities Act was filed but the same was dismissed for want of evidence. Possession was taken over by the defendant on 26.8.78 and the house was also constructed over the said plot. Mesen profit at the rate of Rs. 50/ - per month was claimed by the plaintiff. In the written statement defendant took the plea that prior to 8 -9 years of 26.8.78 Tapra of Matadin was situated over the disputed plot and he used to reside in it. On 26.8.78 Matadin had entered into an agreement for sale, with the defendant and handedover the possession.

(2.) THE agreement was entered for a sum of Rs. 900/ -. Thereafter, the defendant is continuing to be in possession of the house. Defendant has made certain improvements in the Tapra.

(3.) LEARNED first appellate Court came to the conclusion that there is no question of perfection of title by adverse possession by the defendant. As a matter of fact, there was a proposal of sale. Since the origin of possession as per the defendant's case was permissible, there is no question of perfection of title by adverse possession. Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the defendant has failed to prove the possession within the requisite length of time so as to ripen the ownership. Perusal of the agreement Ex D -1C indicates that this fact is mentioned in the agreement that Municipal Council placed Matadin in possession, of the plot in question. It is also mentioned in the agreement, that the Municipal council was unable to execute the sale deed for want of government sanction.