BABOOLAL Vs. SALIM KHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS are appellants. Their suit for declaration of title and possession has been dismissed.

(2.) IT is a very unfortunate case and that is conceded at the Bar. The mountainous record belie the short question crucial to disposal of this appeal I: is unfortunate because plaintiffs have been chasing a mirage and they have been entertaining false hopes for the last 30 years. It is submitted by Shri Lahoti, who appears for defendant -respondents, in this case, that initially plaintiffs had gone before the Civil Judge, Class II, on 4 -5 -1960 and later on plaint being returned, the fresh suit was instituted on 16 -10 -1969 in the Court of District Judge at Guna The impugned order was passed on 25 -4 -1930 (sic) the long travail which the parties have undergone unnecessarily and I would say that the plaintiffs ought to have been advised properly in respect of their legal entitlement at the threshold.

(3.) IT is not disputed that all the four plaintiffs -appellants are successors of the right title and interest as of Harvirsingh and Shambhndayal Singh in the suit land. The question is if then predecessors in -interest had anything which could be passed on to them. About their bonafide purchase, no doubt can be entertained The case of the plaintiffs is that under Section 62 of M B Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 Patta was granted by the Tahsildar to Harvirsing and Shambhudayal Singh. The admitted position established on facts and that is not contested, is that prior to that Harvirsingh and Shambudayal Singh bad no right title and interest of any manner in the suit land However, against grant of that Patta one Bismillabhai preferred objection and eventually that proceeding terminated in a compromise, Ex. P. made on 14 -7 -1953. Be it noted however, Sub -Divisional Officer had, in the meantime, cancelled the Patta of Harvirsingh and Shambudayal Singh and an appeal was pending before the Commissioner at that time. Thus, the compromise was filed before the Commissioner and on that he passed order, Ex. P 5, on 14 -9 -1953. True, in the instant case in the trial Court a large number of issues have been framed and the trial has taken a circulations course with the enough labour spend uselessly on the validity of the compromise and many other things. I am clearly of the opinion. However, that those qaestions are not at all germane for final disposal of this appeal and were not even germane for disposal of the suit. Whether the compromise was lawful or not and whether that was validly executed an duly proved or not are questions which, in my view, are neither chancing nor crucial foe disposal of the snit. I do not, therefore, like to traverse the enure giant of pleadings and evidence to reappreciate the conclusion or findings in regard to the other questions.