KISHANPRASAD Vs. M P GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Vidisha, in Civil Appeal No. 41 /72, by which he confirmed the decree dated 20 -1 -1972, in Civil Suit No. 6A /71 passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Vidisha.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the plaintiff -appellant filed a suit against the respondent for declaration of title on the allegations that the plaintiff -appellant is in possession of the suit lands situated in village Mahrookheri, Tahsil Vidisha, on the basis of a Patta dated 7 -7 -1950, given to him by the then Zamindar Pannalal, now dead. In 1956, the Tahsil served a notice on the appellant requiring the disputed property to be vacated as it was an unoccupied land and it was not used for many years. When the notice was served on the appellant he filed the suit for declaration and injunction before the trial Court. The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence on record, dismissed the suit. It held that Ex. P/l (Patta) is not proved and that the papers filed by the plaintiff are not worth believing. ? aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. This is a second appeal.

(3.) On behalf of the State, Shri M. C. Jain, Government Advocate, submitted that as both the Courts below have held concurrently against the plaintiff, in second appeal, I should not disturb the finding. Further, he has raised an objection that Pannalal is dead. The witnesses of the alleged Patta are no more and so also the person who has written the document. That being the position, both the Courts correctly held that the Patta on which the plaintiff bases his title is not proved according to law and as such, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below require no interference.