VIDYABHARTI Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02/03/2006 in Civil Appeal No. 37A/2005 confirming the judgment and decree dated 20/1/2005 in Civil Suit No. 66A/2003. Plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) SUIT land is an agricultural land falling in survey No. 1130 (old survey No. 770) admeasuring 1.20 in village Sahrana. Admittedly, the suit land was a Charnoi land and thereafter, the same has been given on Patta to defendants no. 1 to 4. Plaintiff filed the suit inter alia contending that since the time of his ancestors the suit land is in possession of his family. Vide order dated 18/8/1995 of the Settlement Officer in case No. 1/94 -95 -Aa -60 in Area 1.04 name of plaintiff has been shown to be in possession doing cultivation and likewise in Khasra Panchshala of Samvat 2053 to 2057 in Kaifiyat column No. 12 the same entry has been made and, therefore, plaintiff claims that his possession is well established over the suit land and justifies his title over the suit land. As defendants no. 1 to 4 with the help of defendant no. 5 are trying to dispossess the plaintiff, therefore, plaintiff brought the instant suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) BASED upon the aforesaid pleadings, trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of evidence on record trial court found that plaintiff failed to establish that he is in continuous possession for the last 30 years over the suit land to claim title by adverse possession and accordingly, dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court re -appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and found in para 9 to 13 of the impugned judgment that revenue entries in Khasra Panchshala produced before the Court do not justify claim of plaintiff as regards continuity of possession over the suit land for the last 30 years. Even oral evidence led by plaintiff is not consistent and suffers from inherent contradictions. As a matter of fact, plaintiff has only produced Khasra Panchshala of three years to show his possession over the suit land, which do not justify possession of plaintiff over the suit land for the last thirty years. Accordingly, the first appellate court found that there is no evidence to justify claim of plaintiff to be in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the suit land for the last 30 years. With the aforesaid findings, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.