LAXMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff under section 100 CPC is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 26/09/2007 passed in civil appeal No. 61A/2006 by District Judge, Vidisha District Vidisha confirming the judgment and decree dated 28/03/2006 passed in civil suit No. 5A/2005 by Civil Judge, Class -II, Kurwai, District Vidisha. Plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF has filed the suit in respect of the suit land situated in village Jhagar, Tahsil Kurwai, District Vidisha as described in paragraph 1 of the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'). Plaintiff asserted that he is in possession over the suit land for the last 35 years, uninterrupted, peaceful and continuous doing cultivation and harvesting crops. As such, perfected title by adverse possession. He had filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kurwai for mutation in respect of the suit land under section 57(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), however the same has been rejected by an order dated 19/11/2001. Hence, apprehending forcible dispossession, instant suit has been filed.

(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 dismissed the suit. On appeal, first appellate Court has again reappreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence brought on record and examined the claim of the plaintiff as regards continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession for the last 35 years over the suit land. First appellate Court observed that the oral evidence led by the plaintiff suffers from inherent contradictions and inconsistencies, particularly; P.W. 2 Khilan Singh does not know whether the suit land is Government land or not. He has further stated that earlier the suit land was ploughed by one Jaswant Singh but he was not sure in which year Jaswant Singh was cultivating the suit land. As regards documentary evidence, exhibits P/2 to P/10, it is observed that in khasra panchshala (exhibit P/2) from the year 1966 -67 to 1968 -69, the suit land shown as reserved for charnoi and the name of father of plaintiff has been shown to be an encroacher, in survey Nos. 50 and 58, however, no possession is shown survey No. 57. Exhibit P/3, khasra panchshala of Samvat 2025 (year 1968), the possession of Gangaram was shown in survey No. 58, but not in survey Nos. 50 and 57. Exhibit P/4 khasra panchshala from the years 1970 -71 to 1973 -74 and Exhibit P/5 khasra panchshala from the years 1973 -74 to 1974 - -75, the name of Gangaram was shown as an encroacher in survey No. 58 and his name was not mentioned in the remaining survey numbers. Likewise, Exhibit P/6 khasra panchshala from the years 1975 -76 to 1979 -80, the possession of plaintiff was shown in survey numbers 50 and 58 but there is no mention of survey number 57. Likewise, in the remaining exhibits P/7 to P/10 well -discussed in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment by the first appellate Court. First appellate Court has also discussed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 19/11/2001 wherein plaintiff was shown to be in possession for some years but as an encroacher. Defendant/State has dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land in the year 1979 -80 in case No. 442/A -68/79 -80. Suit land is reserved as charnoi land being used for Nistar purposes. Upon such discussion of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the first appellate Court found that the plaintiff has failed to establish his continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession over the suit land for more than 30 years for perfection of title by adverse possession. Accordingly, concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court in that behalf and dismissed the suit.