CHAND KHAN Vs. GOPAL BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 12.3.2013, passed by Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1/13, whereby the appeal of the petitioners preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC is rejected. This Misc.Appeal was directed against the order passed by trial court on

(2.) 11.2012 in Civil Suit No. 96A/2012, whereby the petitioners' application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was rejected. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was filed on the basis of claiming adverse possession. On the basis of certain khasra entries, it was stated that the petitioners are in possession. However, the trial court did not grant injunction. The petitioners' Misc.Appeal was also rejected.

(3.) PER Contra, Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioners are relying on column No.12 of the khasra entries whereas the relevant column is 3. Column No.12 deals with "report" (Kafiat) whereas column No.3 deals with the name of the person, who is in possession, his father/husband name, place of residence etc. By drawing the attention of this Court on the khasra filed with the return, it is stated that in relevant column No.3 the name of respondent No.1 is mentioned. By relying on AIR 1963 SC 361 (Shri Raja Durga Singh of Solon v. Tholu and others) (Para 8), it is contended that if two khasra entries are available for the purpose of grant of injunction, it is the latest khasra entry, which is relevant. In addition, it is submitted that the petitioners were encroacher and after appropriate proceedings under section 240 of MP Land Revenue Code the encroachment was removed, which is clear from the order dated 22.9.2009. The Panchnama and report of the revenue inspector is also shown to the Court to submit that the petitioners are no more in possession.