JASWANT SINGH Vs. SHIVRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by plaintiff under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31/1/2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 28 -A/2005 confirming the judgment and decree dated 25/2/2005 in Civil Suit No. 21 -A/2004. Plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF , as per plaint averments, has contended that suit land admeasuring 2 hectare falling in survey No. 442 in Village Dagoraphoot, Tahsil & District Ashoknagar marked as A, B, C, D, in the map attached with the plaint has all along been in possession of his father Anand Singh, as having been transferred to him by the then Zamindar in Samvat 2008 on condition of payment of Lagan as Shikmi and after his death, plaintiff continued to be in possession thereof. By virtue of being Shikmi agriculturist plaintiff acquired rights of Pakka Krishak by force of provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code and accordingly he had become Bhoomiswami of the aforesaid disputed land. In settlement held in the year 1980 the said land was given to the plaintiff as Bhoomiswami and since then he is in continuous, uninterrupted possession thereof. Having apprehended forcible dispossession by defendant No. 1 and likelihood of land being transferred to someone else on Patta by respondent No. 2/State, plaintiff filed the instant suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his possession.

(3.) ON the aforesaid pleadings, trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The trial court upon critical evaluation of evidence on record has dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved thereby, on appeal by plaintiff, the first appellate court has re -appreciated entire evidence on record and inter alia recorded concurrent findings to the effect that there is no documentary evidence on record to demonstrate that in Samvat 2008, the then Zamindar had given Patta of suit land to plaintiff. Besides, even if contention of plaintiff is accepted as regards Maukhik Patta, there is no documentary evidence to demonstrate that at any point of time said information was supplied to the Revenue Department. There is no evidence that plaintiff or his father (dead) had ever deposited Lagan in respect of the suit land. As a matter of fact, there is no documentary evidence as regards fixing of Lagan in respect of suit land for the period for which plaintiff claims to be in possession and paid the Lagan. That apart, Khasra Panchshala of Samvat 2033 to 2037 (Ex. P/8) filed by plaintiff reflects that plaintiff's father's name is mentioned as an encroacher. In Khasra Panchshala of Samvat 2038 to 2042 (Ex. P/9) against the land admeasuring 5 Acres of suit survey name of one Virendra Singh is shown and the entire land is recorded as reserved for Charnoi purposes and likewise in Khasra Panchshala of Samvat 2043 to 2047 in column No. 12 possession of none of the persons has been recorded including the plaintiff. In some stray entries of Samvat 2048 to 2052 (Ex. P/13) unauthorized possession of plaintiff is shown, therefore, on such analysis of documentary evidence on record, courts below have found that plaintiff has failed to prove his continuous, uninterrupted possession over the suit land from Samvat 2008 on the basis of Maukhik Patta as claimed by him and found that the suit has been filed on non -existing facts with ulterior motives to retain the government land. As a matter of fact, plaintiff has been found to be an encroacher over the suit land. With the aforesaid concurring findings, the first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.