BADRILAL Vs. PRABULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendants' is directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated 02/07/2004 passed in civil appeal No. 54A/2004 by II Additional Judge (Fast Track), Sheopur District Sheopur affirming the judgment and decree dated 30/04/2001 passed in civil suit No. 11A/2000 by II Civil Judge, Class -I, Sheopur under section 100 of CPC whereby plaintiffs' suit has been decreed.

(2.) SUIT land is an agricultural land falling in survey No. 12 area 10 bigha 10 biswa situated in village Bichgwadi, Tahsil and District Sheopur, out of which in respect of 03 bigha 10 biswa, suit for eviction and restoration of possession as well as mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 10,500/ - per annum since 1991 was filed. Admittedly, suit land in the revenue record has been recorded in the name of Prabulal, plaintiff. It is averred in the plaint that in the year 1991, the defendants' No. 3 to 8 in collusion with defendant No. 1 have dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land illegally and unauthorisedly. It is pertinent to mention here that initially the suit was filed for permanent injunction in the year 1989. During pendency of the suit, since the plaintiff was dispossessed, the suit was amended in the year 1991 and relief of restoration of possession and mesne profits was claimed.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court had framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court upon comprehensive appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence on record coupled with the pleadings of the parties found that claim of plaintiff was established and accordingly decreed the suit. On appeal, first appellate Court has re -appreciated the evidence on record. It has been found that the plaintiff's name has all along been recorded in the revenue record as bhumiswami over the suit land. The claim of defendants' as regards adverse possession over the suit land has also been discussed thread bare and concurrently recorded a finding that though the suit was initially filed for permanent injunction in the year 1989 but after forcible dispossession by defendants', suit was amended and relief for restoration of possession was incorporated in the year 1991. Kalla alias Kalyan (D.W. 3) in paragraph 8 of his deposition has clearly stated that possession over the suit land was taken in the year 1991 by the defendants' after filing of the suit by plaintiff and, therefore, it is held that the defendants' have forcibly taken possession of the suit land without any authority of law. They (defendants') failed to establish their claim as regards perfection of title by adverse possession. Accordingly, concurred with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit of plaintiff.