MANGALDEEN KORI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, this appeal is preferred under Section 100 of C.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.10.2005 passed by the first Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Satna in Civil Regular Appeal No. 79 -A/2005 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2003 passed by the Civil Judge Class -I, Nagod, District Satna in Civil Original Suit No. 4 -A/1995 whereby suit filed by the present appellant against the respondents for declaration and perpetual injunction with respect of some land on the ground of perfecting the title by adverse possession was dismissed.

(2.) APPELLANT 's counsel after taking me through the record of both Courts below alongwith impugned judgment argued that the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence with proper approach. Keeping in view the provisions of Article 64 of the Limitation Act on proper appreciation of the same, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit and declared the appellant to be the Bhoomiswami of the disputed land and consequently to protect his possession ought to have issued permanent injunction against the respondents restraining them to interfere in the possession of the appellant with respect of the disputed land. In continuation, he said that the appellant proved all necessary ingredients to prove the adverse possession before the trial Court by way of the evidence through witnesses but contrary to his evidence, on appreciation by relying on evidence recorded by the private defendants, his suit has been dismissed by the trial Court. On filing the appeal before the subordinate appellate Court, the appellate Court also without considering such material questions in the matter in the light of the provisions of Article 64 of the Limitation Act has dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. In continuation, by referring the substantial questions of law proposed in the appeal memo, he said that this appeal requires hearing on merits on such substantial questions of law and prayed for admission of this appeal by framing the same.

(3.) APART the aforesaid, in the case in hand, the findings of the appellate Court on the question of adverse possession being based on appreciation of evidence and related to the limitation in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Dudh Nath Pandey (dead by L.Rs.) Vs. Suresh Chandra Bhattasali (dead by L.Rs.) reported in : AIR 1986 SC 1509 could not be interfered under Section 100 of the CPC. In cited case, it was held as under: -