GOVIND Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs' under section 100 CPC is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 27/06/2008 passed in civil appeal No. 36A/2007 by Additional District Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha affirming the judgment and decree dated 09/07/2007 passed in civil suit No. 34A/2006 by Civil Judge, Class -I, Ganj Basoda, plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS ' have filed a civil suit in respect of agricultural land falling in village Bichhia, Tahsil Nateran, District Vidisha as described in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court whereupon claims to be maurasi krishak since the time of their grand -father and, therefore, from Samvat 2006 (Year 1949), the suit land is of their ownership and possession. More than 20 years go, their grand -passed away, his son and thereafter, the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession over the suit land, cultivating and harvesting crops. After abolition of zamindari, they acquired status of pakka krishak with effect from 02/10/1951 and after coming into force of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), they acquired the status of bhumi swami with effect from 02/10/1959. In the alternate, it is submitted that the suit land is in their possession for the last 30 years since 1951; 30 years peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession, hence plaintiffs' claimed title by adverse possession.

(3.) BASED on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, trial Court has found that plaintiffs have failed to establish their right and title over the suit land and, therefore, held not entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, accordingly, the suit is dismissed. On appeal, first appellate Court has again reappreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and it is found that plaintiffs' have failed to establish either in the pleadings or oral evidence as regards grant of patta in favour of their grand -father by erstwhile zamindar as there is no documentary evidence on record. There is no revenue record produced establishing possession over the suit land for the period claimed by the plaintiff. On the contrary, on the basis of documentary evidence on record, the Court found that the suit land is Government land classified as charnoi land. With the aforesaid findings, first appellate Court affirmed the findings of fact recorded by trial Court.