BHAGWAN 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 27/06/2007 passed in civil appeal No. 44A/2006 by District Judge, Vidisha District Vidisha affirming the judgment and decree dated 28/02/2006 passed in civil suit No. 118A/2005 by Civil Judge, Class -I, Vidisha, plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed the instant suit inter alia pleading that an agricultural land admeasuring 2.000 hectare falling in survey No. 446/3 situated in village Balabarkhed, Tahsil and District Vidisha (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') for the last 40 years since time of his ancestors to the knowledge of the State Government peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession over the suit land. During this period, appellant's possession has never been questioned or dispossessed by the defendant/State. As such, perfected title by adverse possession. However, having apprehended forcible dispossession on 30/08/1992, filed the suit.

(3.) ON the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the entire evidence on record has recorded comprehensive findings of fact and dismissed the suit. On appeal, first appellate Court has again reappreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record to analyse the assertion of the plaintiff as regards claim of the plaintiff that he has been in possession over the suit land for the last 40 years. The revenue record is well -discussed in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment by the first appellate Court wherein it is found that barring stray entries right from the beginning, the plaintiff's name is not either shown or recorded as an encroacher. As such, plaintiff has not been found to be in peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession over the suit land for the last 40 years, much less, statutory period to claim adverse possession, i.e., 30 years in terms of Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 instead the suit land has been recorded as Government land for charnoi purposes. With the aforesaid findings, first appellate Court affirmed the findings of fact recorded by trial Court and dismissed the suit.