PARMA Vs. RATNA KACHHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the following substantial question of law formulated by this Court on 12.5.2000 : "Whether the appellant can be said to be in adverse possession of the property and perfected his right, title and interest?"

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1999 passed by the Court of District Judge, Chhatarpur in Civil Appeal No. 97A/1999 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. Short facts of the appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 instituted a suit against Kilkota (father of the present appellant) and his son Parma (present appellant) for declaration of title and permanent injunction mainly, with the allegations that the land comprised in various survey numbers described in paragraph-2 of the impugned judgment was inherited by the plaintiff from his ancestors. Total land was in para 27 acre 43 decimal situated at village Dauriya, Tahsil, Naugaon, District, Chhatarpur. l/3rd of the aforesaid land which came to be about 9 acre 14 decimal was collusively got recorded in the name of defendant-appellant which was subject matter of the suit and eventually of the present appeal. According to the plaintiff, the entire land was earlier recorded in the name of his father and grand father. At the lime of death of his father, the plaintiff was minor. His mother Sita Bai being a widow look the help of Kilkota in the work of cultivation. Kilkota taking undue advantage of the minority of the plaintiff and also of illiteracy and widowhood of the mother of the plaintiff, got his name entered in the revenue record on l/3rd share and also of his son Parma (i.e. defendant/ appellant) on 1/3rd share. After passage of time, the plaintiff on coming to know of this, raised an objection about the entry in favour of Kilkota. So, Kilkota executed a registered sale deed on 29.12.1972 in favour of the plaintiff and thus, retransferred 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. Remaining 1/3rd share which was got entered in the revenue record in the name of Parma, continued so. although the plaintiff remained in possession of the said land. Afterwards, the defendant-appellant initiated proceedings, for partition in Revenue Court and claimed l/3rd share as per the revenue entry. The plaintiff raised an objection in the Court of Tahsildar that Parma was not a member of his family and the entry in his name on l/3rd share was managed in the revenue record in an illegal and collusive manner. The Revenue Court directed the plaintiff to approach civil Court in the matter. Accordingly, the plaintiff by instituting the suit prayed that he be declared Bhumiswami and occupant of the disputed land (which is the l/3rd share entered in the revenue papers in the name of Parma). The plaintiff in the alternative has pleaded that in case if he is not found to be in possession, a decree in restoration of possession be granted in his favour.

(3.) LEARNED trial Judge after recording the evidence dismissed the suit on 31.8.1995 and an appeal preferred against it has been allowed by the Court of District Judge. Chhatarpur on 23.9.1999 holding thereby that the plaintiff is Bhumiswami of the disputed land and is entitled to restoration of possession because the suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of the defendant-appellant. A decree for possession has also been granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant.