AZIZUDDIN QURESHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31-7-2006 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 35-A/2005, modifying the judgment and decree dated 6-8-2005 passed by the 18th Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, in COS No. 152-A/05 dismissing his suit for declaration to declare him the owner of the suit property seized by the official of the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878 (in short 'the Act'), with a further prayer to declare the order dated 16-3-2004 passed by the respondent No. 2/Collector, with respect of such property, under the Act being illegal is not binding on him. While modifying the judgment and decree of the Trial Court the Appellate Court instead to decree the suit directed the appellant to file the appeal against the aforesaid order of the Collector, dated 16-3-2004 under the provision of Section 9 of the Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellant herein filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents contending that in the year 1975-76, he was residing in a house of one Shri Ansari situated at Gurandi Bazar, Jabalpur, during such period such house was subjected to burn, on which to save the lives, the appellant and his family member by leaving their goods and belonging in such premises had left the same and subsequently after extinguishing such fire he came back to such house on 13-5-1976 then only he came to know that some unsocial elements by committing the theft had taken away his aforesaid domestic goods and belongings, on which he lodged a report of theft with the Police Station, Belbagh on the same day, i.e., 13-5-1976. In such report, besides the other stolen articles one sealed "Gund" (A Metallic Utensil) was also stated. As per further averments, in such "Gund" his old coins and other valuable were kept. Subsequent to incident after removing said coins and belongings such empty Gund was thrown in his house. Out of the alleged stolen articles some of them after recovery had been returned to him by the Collector, Jabalpur vide order dated 2-1-1977, while some of the articles on recovery were returned to him by the Collector, Dindori vide order dated 22-4-2004. As per further averments of the plaint some of the stolen articles were recovered by the Police Station, Omti and Madan Mahal in the year 1997, on which on behalf of respondent No. 2 by publishing a news in this regard in the bulletin of Dainik Bhaskar of 2-1-2003, the claims with respect of such seized property were invited within six months under the provision of the Act. On such publication the plaintiff herein filed his claim in the office of the respondent No. 2/Collector, Jabalpur. Besides the appellant one Santosh Kumar has also filed his claim on 20-6-2003 with respect of the same seized property. After receiving such claims the respondent No. 2 has registered the cases under the Act, in which the statement of the present appellant and said Santosh Kumar were recorded. On subsequent occasion said Santosh Kumar had relinquished his right with respect of the seized property. Thereafter the appellant was the only claimant to receive such seized valuable articles. But on adjudication of such matter the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 16-3-2004 stating that the seized articles were not specifically mentioned by the appellant in his First Information Report dated 13-5-1976 and pursuant to that by holding that appellant has failed to prove his title over such seized property/ articles dismissed his claim. It was also held by the respondent No. 2 that aforesaid articles were recovered in the territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station, Omti and Madan Mahal, which are very far away from the alleged place of the appellant, the Gurandi Bazar from where his articles were stolen, thus, it could not be deemed to be the property of the appellant. According to further pleadings of the appellant such order was passed by the respondent No. 2 without having any territorial jurisdiction over the matter and also contrary to the provisions of Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act. It is also stated that in spite the availability of sufficient evidence showing the right and title of the appellant over the seized property his claim was dismissed contrary to such record by the respondent No. 2. With these averments besides the above mentioned prayer of declaration a prayer of mandatory injunction directing the respondent No. 2 to deliver the disputed seized articles to him is also made.

(3.) In spite service of notice on the respondents no one was appeared before the Trial Court, on which the case was proceeded ex-parte against them.