RAGHUNATH Vs. MUNNILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-defendant No. 1 preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1996 passed in Civil Appeal No. 60A/89 by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Rewa, affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1983 passed in Civil Suit No. 45 A/80 by Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Mauganj whereby, the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession was decreed with costs.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed the suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Mauganj, District Rewa for declaration, permanent injunction and for recovery of possession of the disputed lands, shown in paragraph 2 of the plaint. The plaintiff's case was that a 'Patta' was granted in the name of Mathura and Prayag of the disputed land in the year 1923 at the time of settlement. The proceedings of settlement had taken place in the year 1923 and thereafter, in the year 1969-70, the proceedings of consolidation were started. After three years of the first settlement, Mathura died and after two days of his death, his son Bhagwandeen also died and at that time, the defendant Raghunath was only two or three years old. The village Pakra was Pawai village of Elaka Naigarhi and Ramraj Singh was Pawaidar at the relevant time. The Pawaidars also had the authority to dispossess any person and they were also authorised to grant Patta. Raghunath and Samai failed to pay the land revenue to Pawaidar and that is why the Pawaidar dispossessed these persons from the disputed lands and, thereafter, in the year 1943, the new Patta was granted by Illakedar, Naigarhi to plaintiff No.1, who was 'Karta' of the family and thereafter, the plaintiffs received the possession of disputed lands. The plaintiffs are holding continuous possession since the year 1943. When the Pawai was ruined from Illaka Naigarhi on 1.7.1953 and the records were prepared by State, the entries with regard to Patta of Mathura and Prayag remained as it is and the facts of issuance of Patta in favour of plaintiff No. 1 could not be recorded in the revenue papers after settlement. Since, the plaintiffs were in possession of disputed lands, the entry of possession was continuously entered in the Khasra and Khatoni. The Khatoni of the year 1958-59 is the record of rights and the possession of the plaintiffs was entered in this record. After Chakbandi also, the plaintiffs were found in possession of disputed lands. In alternative, the plaintiffs pleaded that they are in possession over the suit land since more than 12 years, therefore, they became owner of the disputed property on the basis of adverse possession. On 7.7.1974, the employees of the Government came to inform about the Patta of Mathura and Prayag, and thereafter, the defendants started their efforts to dispossess the plaintiffs from the disputed lands. They are causing hinderances in the agricultural work of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the suit was filed for declaration of title, issuance of permanent injunction and recovery of possession.

(3.) THE learned trial Court found that the plaintiffs are title holder of the dispute land and they are also entitled to take back the possession. A permanent injunction was also issued in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants. Against this judgment and decree, the appeal was filed by the plaintiffs but the same was dismissed and the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Against the said judgment and decree, this second appeal has been preferred. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :