ISHWARDEEN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4/10/2010 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.79-A/2010 by 8th Additional District Judge, Rewa arising out of the judgment and decree dated 17/12/2008 passed in Civil Sluit No.280- A/2006 by 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Rewa whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs is dismissed.

(2.) The appellants/plaintiffs visited the Court by filing a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants alleging that the land in suit was originally belonging to one Girija Prasad and others. The land in suit was given to father of the appellant-Ishwardeen namely Shiv Sahay as a Sikmi agriculturist by said Girija Prasad. Though the land was in possession of the father of the appellant-Ishwardeen for last fifty years, but, when the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was made applicable, the land was recorded in the name of the State Government, however, the appellants were never dispossessed from the land. Whenever the notice of dispossession was issued by the revenue authorities, the appellants moved application for settlement of the land in their favour. However, instead of settling the land in favour of the appellants, part of it was settled in favour of respondents 2 to 7 on different dates, therefore, the suit was required to be filed.

(3.) Though the responders were served with the notice of the suit, but, it appears that no written statement, whatsoever, was filed by them and they were proceeded exparte. The trial Court thereafter recorded the evidence of the appellants and reached to the conclusion that the appellants grossly failed to prove that the land was given in favour of the father of appellant-Ishwardeen as a Sikmi Kashtkar and that he was continuously in possession of the said land. The revenue record produced by the appellants indicates that the land was recorded earlier in the name of Girija Prasad and subsequently it was recorded in the name of State Government, but, at no point of time, even the possession of the appellant was proved on the said land for a continuous period of fifty years, as alleged. It was seen that in some of the revenue entries started from the year 1991 onwards, the name of the appellants as encroacher was mentioned in part of the land. It was, thus, held that from such evidence since the appellants/plaintiffs have completely failed to prove their continuous possession over the land in suit, the plea raised by them, in their plaint, cannot be accepted. The title of the appellants/plaintiffs was, thus, not proved even on the plea of adverse possession and such a claim was dismissed. However, holding that looking to the oral evidence available on record, the appellants/plaintiffs have proved partially that they were in possession of some of the land, a decree of permanent injunction was granted to the effect that the appellants/plaintiffs be not dispossessed from the suit land without recourse of law.