KAMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 100 CPC by the plaintiff is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 30/01/2006 passed in civil appeal No.192A/2005 by District Judge, Vidisha District Vidisha affirming the judgment and decree dated 23/09/2005 passed in civil suit No.86A/2005 by Civil Judge, ClassI, Vidisha. By the aforesaid concurring judgments, both the Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs' for declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) SUIT land; different parcels of agricultural land as described in paragraph 2 of the judgment by the first appellate Court which is claimed to be in continuous possession of the father of the plaintiff since Samvat 2020 (1963) and thereafter by virtue of legal heir, the same is in possession of the plaintiff for the last 30 years peacefully, uninterruptedly and continuously. Plaintiff claimed to have acquired title by adverse possession. He was never dispossessed from the suit land. Defendant/State by dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land intended to allot the same to different persons, hence, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed.

(3.) BASED on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court on critical evaluation of the evidence on record has negated the claim of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. First appellate Court has reappreciated the entire evidence on record and concurring with the findings of the trial Court, it has been found that the plaintiff failed to establish by oral and documentary evidence that he is in peaceful, uninterrupted and continuous possession over the suit land for the last 30 years. Suit land is found to be Government land. As per documentary evidence, it is charnoi land. The evidence is well discussed in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the impugned judgment by the first appellate Court. There are some stray entries in the revenue record as regards possession of father of plaintiff that itself will not justify the claim of possession for the last 30 years and in most of the khasra entries, plaintiff was found to be an encroacher.