BAPULAL RAMLAL GURJAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applellant on admission. This Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under sec. 100 of Civil Procedure Code,1908 (in short CPC) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 22/12/2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mandsaur in RCA no. 205/2017, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 06/01/2017 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Narayangarh, District Mandsaur in Civil Suit no 101- A/2016 filed by the appellant/ plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which has been dismissed by the Trial Court.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that Iliyas Mohammad Ejaj Mohammd and Ishaq Mohammad as Khudashat and their names were registered in the revenue record as pakka tenant and landlord. On 15/08/1947, they had migrated to Pakisthan. Appellant/ plaintiff and other persons filed three separate civil suits bearing no. 166-A/2004, 167-A/2004 and 168-A/2004 before the Civil Judge, Narayangarh by showing themselves to be sub-farmer of Iliyas Mohammad, Ejaj Mohammd and Ishaq Mohammad and sought relief of declaration and their title, but all the three civil suits were dismissed on 30/01/2005, then the appellant and other persons preferred appeal before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Mandsaur. The same was also dismissed vide order dtd. 30/12/2008 with liberty to the plaintiff to file afresh civil suit. The plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since 15 th August, 1947. His possession was entered in the revenue record as landlord but in the year 1973-74, name of the plaintiff along with other persons were deleted and name of respondent No.2 was entered into revenue record. As per the provision of Administration Evacuee Property Act,1950, the suit land was vested in respondent No 2/Government of India, but respondent No. 2 never took possession of the suit land through Custodian Officer and no such notification was issued. The provision of sec. 264 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code is not applicable in respect of land of the Central Government, therefore, the appellant/plaintiff filed civil suit against the respondent/defendant.

(3.) The respondent denied all the allegations regarding possession of the plaintiff over the suit property by stating that on 31/03/1974, on behalf of respondent No. 1 Revenue Inspector had taken possession of the suit land, therefore, no question arises regarding acquiring adverse possession of the appellant /plaintiff over the suit property for last 30 years. Order of Mutation dtd. 23/03/1974 is also binding upon the plaintiff. The suit being time barred is not maintainable.