PRANSINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22/3/2004 in Civil Appeal No. 6 -A/2004 confirming the judgment and decree dated 6/12/2003 in Civil Suit No. 23 -A/2002. Plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed a suit inter alia contending that the suit land admeasuring 2 hectare falling in Khasra No. 326 in village Jhilipur, Tahsil Basoda, District Vidisha, is in his possession since 14/1/1972, whereupon they are doing cultivation and harvesting crops. They are in peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted possession thereof hostile to the State. Since they apprehended forcible dispossession, therefore, brought the instant suit for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) ON aforesaid pleadings, trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon critical evaluation of evidence on record dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court re -appreciated the entire evidence on record, particularly documentary evidence in para 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment, whereby it is found that plaintiffs have failed to establish their possession over the suit land since 14/1/1972 to claim title by adverse possession against the State. As a matter of fact, in most of the entries in Khasra Panchshala plaintiffs have been shown to be an encroacher, like in Ex. P/5 of Samvat 2038 -2039, Ex. P/6 of Samvat 2038 -2042, Ex. P/7 of 1996 -97 to 1999 -2000, Ex. P/8 of 1986 -87 to 1990 -91 and Ex. P/9 of 2001 -2002. The oral evidence led by the plaintiffs to assert their possession over the suit land is found to be suffering from inherent contradictions and inconsistencies. It has been ultimately found that plaintiffs failed to establish their continuous possession over the suit land for last 30 years hostile to the State Government to claim title by adverse possession as provided under Article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.