IMRATLAL Vs. VISHNU PRASAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been preferred by the Appellants aggrieved by dismissal of application was filed under Order 41, Rule 21 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code to restore, rehear and decide the appeal afresh.

(2.) THE case has a checkered history. Plaintiffs/Respondents filed a suit praying for relief of declaring the order passed by the erstwhile Bhopal Government, to be null and void and title of Respondents No. 1 to 13 to be declared as illegal, they be treated as trespasser and it be held that that the Plaintiffs are the real Bhumiswami of the disputed land. Prayer for possession was also made along with mesne profit. Decree for mesne profit was prayed jointly and severally against the Defendants.

(3.) PLAINTIFFS averred that father of Plaintiffs are sons of Kanhaiyalal. Kanhaiyalal was grandfather of the Plaintiffs. The land in dispute was inherited by Kanhaiyalal from his father; Ganpat Singh. Kanhaiyalal inherited the property; shown in schedule "A". In the year 1954 -55 the Bhopal State passed an order under the Kans Eradication Act, 1954. Legal heirs/successors of Kanhaiyalal were not consulted before tractorisation of the land under the suit and charges of Rs. 8,732/ - were realized. Kanhaiyalal nor his son filed any civil suit before the Civil Court to question the illegal and arbitrary action of the Bhopal State owing to their negligence, lethargy and ignorance of law carelessness. The Apex Court in another case State of M.P. and Anr. v. Champalal and Ors., : 1965 MPLJ (SC) 279 : AIR 1965 SC 124 decided against the State of Madhya Pradesh and held that the action taken under the Act was illegal. Defendants No. 1 to 13 are trespasser on the land, they are illegally reaping the benefit of mesne profit. There was negligence on the part of Defendants No. 14, 15, 16 and 17 in taking timely action, they are arrayed as proper parties in the suit.