BHUJBAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15/4/2009 in civil appeal No.5A/2009 confirming the judgment and decree dated 16/1/2009 in civil suit No.6A/2008. Plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) FACTS necessary for the disposal of this appeal are to the effect that as per plaint averments plaintiff -Bhujbal had four sons, namely, Brijendra Singh, Lokendra Singh, Yogendra Singh and Shailendra Singh. It is averred that different parcels of lands in different Khasra Nos.66, 67, 71 and 72 in village Vais, Patwari Halka No.35, District Vidisha are in possession of plaintiffs doing cultivation harvesting corps thereupon. The aforesaid land was purchased by father of plaintiff -Bhujbal, namely, Kanhaiyalal by oral sale by the then Zamindar of the area in the year 1942 and since then plaintiff was in possession thereof. By virtue of Vahmi Batwara plaintiff - Brijendra Singh was apportioned the land admeasuring 0.199 hectare in Khasra No.66, plaintiff -Lokendra Singh land admeasuring 1.025 hectare in Khasra No.67, (Bhujbal Singh and others Vs. State of M.P.) plaintiff -Yogendra Singh land admeasuring 1.003 hectare in Khasra No.71 and plaintiff -Shailendra Singh land admeasuring 0.282 hectare in Khasra No.72. However, the local Patawari without notice to the plaintiffs illegally changed the land record and described plaintiffs as encroacher over the suit land. It is submitted that as plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land for 50 -60 years uninterruptedly, peacefully and continuously, in fact they have acquired title by adverse possession over the suit land and defendant/State has no right to dispossess them from the suit land. However, having apprehension of forcible dispossession instant suit was filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) ON the aforesaid pleadings, trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Upon comprehensive analysis of evidence on record, trial court (Bhujbal Singh and others Vs. State of M.P.) dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court re - appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their possession over the suit land for last 50 -60 years. This finding is recorded upon careful consideration of Khasra Panchshala of the various years filed by plaintiffs, as well discussed in para 8 and 9 of the first appellate court's judgment. That apart, in para 19 the first appellate court further observed that there is no evidence on record that father of plaintiff -Bhujbal, namely, Kanhaiyalal had purchased the suit land in the year 1942 by oral sale by the then Zamindar of the area. There is no evidence available on record that the suit land, after the sale was effected in the year 1942, was ever recorded in the name of Kanhaiyalal in the revenue record. Khasra Panchshala of the year 1952 -53, Ex.P/1, was found to be in respect of different Khasra numbers viz.53, 54, 55 and 56, whereas lands in question fall in Khasra No.66, 67, 71 and 72. Likewise, Ex.P/2 is also found to be of no relevance. The first appellate court in para 22 has rightly observed that the suit is filed on 22/9/2007 and reliance is placed upon the Khasra entries of the year 1996 -97 to 2000 -2001 to claim title by adverse possession and, (Bhujbal Singh and others Vs. State of M.P.) therefore, the claim as made by plaintiffs was found to be de hors the documents on record. With the aforesaid findings based upon the critical analysis of evidence on record the suit was dismissed confirming the findings of the trial court.