CHHAGANLAL Vs. MANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -plaintiff has filed this appeal under section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 26.3.2003 in Civil Appeal No. 49-A/02, passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Neemuch, confirming the judgment and decree dated 5.1.1998 in Civil Suit No. 270-A/98, delivered by the learned Civil Judge Class-I Jawad. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the bhumiswami in possession of the land bearing Khata No. 246 and adjoining to his land there is a land bearing survey No. 1131 area8.183 hectares and this land of 1131 belongs to the State. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he is using the part of the land of survey No. 1131 for more that 40 years for keeping the cattle there and using it as "Khaliyan". That the land is also used by the plaintiff as a passage and he has acquired the easementry right as well as right of adverse possession on the part of the land of survey No. 1131. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant No. 1 is the Patel of the village and he has illegally managed to get the Patta of the part of the land of survey No. 1131 in favour of his son defendant No. 2. The plaintiff has prayed that the Patta issued by the State in favour of the defendant No. 1 be declared null and void and the defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession and the use of the suit land by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court and the learned appellant Court has held that the plaintiff has no right to challenge the Patta issued by the State in favour-of the defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff has also not acquired easementry right on the land of survey No. 1131 and, as such, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the land of survey No. 1131 belongs to the State. The plaintiff has not proved his title on the suit land by adverse possession. There is no record to show that the plaintiff has acquired easementry right on the suit land. In these circumstances it was rightly held by the Courts below that the plaintiff has no right to challenge the propriety of the Patta issued by the State in favour of defendant No. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that how the concurrent finding of the Courts below is perverse or illegal. No substantial question of law exists in the case. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed in limine.