CHANDRIKA PRASAD TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/plaintiff has directed this appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29-7-2008 passed by IVth Additional District Judge Rewa, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 78-A/70 upholding the judgment and decree dated 30-4-2007 passed by the IVth Civil Judge Class-II, Rewa in Civil Original Suit No. 172-A/2006, dismissing his suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed against the respondent with respect of the revenue land bearing Survey No. 553 Area 24 decimal situation in village Chhijwar recorded in the name of respondent/State in the revenue record.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellant herein filed the above mentioned suit against the respondent contending that some partition took place between his fore-father and fore-father of Ram Prasad. In such partition, besides the other land, the aforesaid land bearing S. N. 553 Area 24 decimal (old No. 446) was given in the share of his fore-father. As per further averments after abolition of Pavaidar rights vide dated 1 -7-1954, such land was remained in cultivation of the appellant and on coming into force the M. P. Land Revenue Code in 1959, by virtue of section 158 of the same, he has became the Bhumi Swami of such land but in spite giving notice to the respondent, his name was not recorded as Bhumi Swami in the record of rights, on which, he has filed the impugned civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction with respect of such land.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent, in spite the service of the notice neither appearance was given nor any written statement was filed, on which, an ex-parte evidence of the appellant was recorded in the matter. On appreciation of such evidence, the trial Court after holding, that mere on the basis of entries in the remark column of Khasra showing the possession of the appellant over the disputed land, being made the same without any order of the competent revenue officer, it could not be inferred that the appellant has perfected any right or title of Bhumi Swami over such land, dismissed the suit.