VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by plaintiffs is directed against the concurring judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court dated 10/7/2008 in Civil Appeal No. 4A/2008 confirming the judgment and decree dated 13/7/2006 passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 495A/ 2003. Plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) FACTS necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that the plaintiffs filed a suit in respect of agricultural land falling in survey No. 19/1, rakwa 3.000 hectare min rakwa 2.000 hectare situated at village Gaudkhedi, Tahsil Kurwai, District Vidisha on the premise that since the time of their ancestors the suit land has been in possession of their forefather and thereafter plaintiffs continue to be in possession thereof. In support of the pleadings as regards their possession over the suit land for last more than 30 years, plaintiffs filed revenue documents viz. Ex.P/1 to P/8 and pleaded that by virtue of uninterrupted, peaceful and continuous possession over the suit land, plaintiffs have acquired title by adverse possession.

(3.) THE trial court based on the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The trial court on critical evaluation of evidence on record has reached the conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to establish their title over the suit land, as there is no evidence on record to suggest uninterrupted, peaceful and continuous possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land for more than 30 years to claim adverse possession against the State. As regards Ex.P/1 to P/8, the trial court has recorded the finding that initially the suit land is recorded as Pathar of the ownership and title of State Government and thereafter names of different persons are recorded that too as encroacher, however, no document showing continuous entries of uninterrupted, peaceful and continuous possession for last more than 30 years has been brought on record by the plaintiffs to claim title by adverse possession. It has further been observed that the encroachment shown to have been done by the plaintiffs can always be removed by the State by resorting to the provisions as contained in the M.P. Land Revenue Code. The aforesaid judgment and decree was further reviewed by the first appellate court by re -appreciating the evidence on record. The first appellate court has confirmed the findings of the trial court.