RAJKUMAR Vs. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff under section 100 CPC is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 16/04/2007 passed in civil appeal No. 190A/2005 by Additional District Judge, Basoda District Vidisha affirming the judgment and decree dated 17/06/2005 passed in civil suit No. 1A/2005 by Civil Judge, Class-I, Basoda, plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF claimed to be in possession over an agricultural land admeasuring min area 0.627 hectare out of 0.857 hectare towards north side falling in AARAJI No. 277/1 and area 0.533 hectare falling in survey No. 350 situated in village Madiya Semra, district Vidisha (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') though recorded as Government land. Plaintiff claimed to be in possession over the suit land for the last 30 years since the time of zamindari and, therefore, acquired status of bhumi swami. With the aforesaid pleadings, prayed for decreeing the suit.

(3.) ON the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the entire evidence on record, trial Court has recorded comprehensive findings of fact and dismissed the suit. On appeal, first appellate Court has again reappreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and particularly paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment whereupon after careful perusal of the revenue record, it is found that the suit land has been recorded as beed land. That apart, there is nothing on record to suggest that plaintiff or plaintiff's ancestors are in possession over the suit land since the time of zamindari. No revenue record has been produced showing name of plaintiff or father of plaintiff as bhumi swami over the suit land o establish his right as sought for. First appellate Court has also examined the oral evidence in that behalf and depositions of plaintiff's witnesses as discussed in detail in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment. With the aforesaid findings, first appellate Court affirmed the findings of fact recorded by trial Court and dismissed the suit.