GANGAWATI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs who have filed Case No. ( Civil Suit) 202-A/06 in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class I, Rewa. The suit was dismissed and appeal of plaintiff bearing No. 24-A/07 was also dismissed. The parties have been heard on admission.

(2.) It was argued that both the Courts failed to see that plaintiffs were having title and possession was sought against the State Government on the ground of adverse possession on the suit property over the last 30 years. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Motiram Vs. Pannalal, 2002(1) M.P.L.J. 86. Attention was drawn to paragraphs 15 and 16, which are as below:-

(3.) On perusal of the judgments of both the Courts, it is seen that in paragraph 2 of the plaint, plaintiff has mentioned that grandfather of the plaintiff Mahavir was Benimadhav whereas in paragraph 3 he has mentioned that Benimadhav was son of Mangaldeen. The suit is filed by Mahavir Prasad S/o Mangaldeen, plaintiff No.1 and Kamalkant S/o Mahavir Prasad. The suit has been filed on two folds. On one hand, on the basis of title and on the other hand on the basis of adverse possession. As far as adverse possession is concerned and as held by both the Courts, there was litigation, therefore, looking to the ongoing litigation adverse possession would not give title to the plaintiff. It is submitted that earlier there was litigation and copies of compromise applications in Civil Court Ex. P/6 application and Ex. P/17 application have been filed but in considered opinion of this Court any proceeding in which government is not a party those documents / applications cannot be considered against the government. It is seen that learned trial Court in para 6, the trial Court has mentioned that P.W.1 is Kamalkant, P.W.2 is Rampal Singh, P.W.3 is Hridaylal but it is seen that P.W.1 was asked certain questions in paragraph 8 by the Court in which P.W.1 submitted that he does not know how the suit property was received by his grandfather. He also does not know when his grandfather mortgaged the suit property to Suryabali Singh. He does not know when redemption was done. He does not have receipt that he paid revenue i.e. lagan to the government, therefore, although the State did not appear and remained ex-parte and did not cross-examine the witnesses but the burden would lie heavily on the plaintiff to prove his case, even in ex-parte case. On perusal of the entire case it is seen that pleadings of the plaintiffs are contrary and it is not clear whether they have claimed title on the basis of adverse possession which is not proved or have claimed title on the basis of any previous title of his predecessor and no specific pleading has been made as to when adverse possession started or since when title accrued to the plaintiffs on either ground i.e. adverse possession or on the basis of title otherwise.