NAFIS-UR-RAHMAN Vs. TULSYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs' (heirs of original plaintiff, Abdul Rahman Qureshi) under section 100 CPC is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 03/01/2006 passed in civil appeal No.57A/2005 by II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Sheopur District Sheopur affirming the judgment and decree dated 30/07/2005 passed in civil suit No.67A/2004 by I Civil Judge, ClassII, Sheopur, plaintiff's suit for declaration, permanent injunction and restoration of possession in respect of an agricultural land falling in Survey No.122 area 4 bigha situated in village Bada Kheda, Tahsil and District Sheopur (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') has been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF claimed to be in possession over the suit land since Samvat 2023 (1966). It is contended that originally the suit land was of the ownership of one Nazmul Rahman upto Samvat 2022 (1965) having purchased the same from SafiUrRahman. In Samvat 2023 (1966), Nazmul Rahman had transferred the suit land in favour of original plaintiff, Abdul Rahman Qureshi by an oral patta, accordingly, holds the tittle over the suit land under Sections 169 and 190 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). It is further alleged that patwari illegally recorded the suit land in the name of State in Samvat 2023 (1966).

(3.) BASED on the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, Trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court has reappreciated the entire evidence on record and it has been found that there is no evidence on record to sustain the claim of the plaintiff as regards delivery of possession over the suit land by Nazmul Rahman on an oral patta in Samvat 2023 (1966). There is nothing on record that Nazmul Rahman had any right, title or interest over the suit land which he was entitled to transfer in favour of he plaintiff. That apart, the plaintiff asserts to be in possession over the suit land since Samvat 2023 (1966) has also not been substantiated by any cogent evidence on record. Claim of perfection of title by adverse possession on the basis of peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession over the suit land has also been negated for want of evidence on record.