NAZAR MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by plaintiffs' under section 100 CPC is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 09/10/2007 passed in civil appeal No. 13A/2007 by District Judge, Sheopur District Sheopur confirming the judgment and decree dated 24/03/2007 passed in civil suit No. 77A/2006 by Civil Judge, Class -II, Sheopur. Plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS ' have filed the suit in respect of the suit property situated on Shivpuri road in village Shivpuri as described in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'). Plaintiffs' asserted that they are in possession over the suit land for the last 30 years, uninterrupted, peaceful and continuous doing cultivation and harvesting crops. The defendant/State in case No. 73/01 -02/A -68 has passed an order on 23/11/2001 without notice and without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants and imposed fine of Rs. 700/ - allegedly for the reason of encroachment by the plaintiffs over the suit land. Apprehending forcible dispossession on 20/09/2002 by the patwari of the local area, the instant suit for declaration of perfection of title by adverse possession and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs' over the suit land was filed.

(3.) ON 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 in respect of claim of perfection of title by adverse possession by the plaintiffs'. The first appellate Court has observed that there are inherent contradictions and inconsistencies in the oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiffs, particularly; PW 4 Sobaran Singh, Revenue Inspector who with respect to khasra entries from Samvat 2024 (year 1967) to Samvat 2045 (year 1988) in his chief examination has stated that the name of plaintiffs' father, Yusuf was shown to be in possession over the suit land, however, in the cross -examination, he has stated that 3 -4 months back he has been posted at Sheopur, he has not physically seen the suit land and he does not know as to who is in possession over the suit land. The burden was upon the plaintiffs to prove the continuous, uninterrupted and continuous possession over the suit land for the last 30 years to claim perfection of title by adverse possession against the State. However, the plaintiffs failed to establish their claim in that behalf. Merely because some stray entries in the revenue record that the ancestors of the plaintiffs are shown in possession over the suit land, that by itself will not justify their claim by adverse possession. Even otherwise, after Samvat 2045 (year 1988), there is nothing on record to establish that the plaintiffs' are in possession over the suit land though from Samvat 2024 (year 1967) to Samvat 2045 (year 1988) in some of the revenue entries, the name of plaintiffs' ancestors have been shown to be in possession but as an encroacher. With the aforesaid findings, first appellate Court affirmed the findings of fact recorded by trial Court that the plaintiffs have failed to establish perfection of title by adverse possession and dismissed the suit.