PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13-12-1995 passed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Appeal No. 2-A/95 reversing the judgment and decree dated 12-5-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class I, Rehli in civil suit No. 31-A/86 whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration of title and perpetual injunction has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.

(2.) The essential facts necessary to decide the appeal are : The suit property is agricultural land bearing Survey No. 409 area 0.43 acre of village Garhakota. The plaintiff/appellant instituted the above civil suit pleading that his ancestor Gangadhar had purchased the suit land from Maalguzar on 31-10-1926 and got possession thereof. since then Gangadhar and after his death his legal heirs had been in possession of the suit land. On 15-2-1949 Gangadhar also executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. However, the suit land has been ordered to have been vested in the State by the defendant-respondent No. 1/State of M.P. and thereafter proceedings for dispossessing the plaintiff/appellant from the suit land have been initiated. The plaintiff/appellant, therefore, instituted the above civil suit for declaration of his title over the suit land and perpetual injunction restraining the officers of the defendant-respondent No. 1/State of M.P. from interfering his possession over the suit land.

(3.) The defendant-respondent No. 1/State of M.P. denied the above facts regarding the ownership of the plaintiff/appellant and averred that the suit Tand is the Government land which has been recorded in the revenue papers as 'Chhota Ghas'. It has, further, been averred that the father of the plaintiff/appellant encroached upon the disputed land and therefore, the legal proceedings to remove the encroachment are being taken against the plaintiff/appellant. The father of the plaintiff/appellant was Bansi Patel who was also impleaded as a party in the suit who died during the pendency of the litigation and therefore, his legal representatives have been brought on record who are the respondent Nos. 2 to 7.