RANJOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed u/S. 100 CPC assails the concurrent findings returned by the trial court and as well as the first appellant court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff seeks declaration of title based on adverse possession and permanent injunction.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on the question of admission.

(3.) The suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff contending that the suit property which is an agricultural piece of land was in possession of the father of the plaintiff whereafter the plaintiff continues to be in peaceful possession. The possession was claimed to be uninterrupted and therefore declaration of a decree of title was sought based on adverse possession along with a decree of permanent injunction against the respondents from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. The cause of action was stated to have arisen on 24.11. 2009 when the employees of the defendants attempted to disturb the alleged peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The defendant in their statement responded by denying the claim of the plaintiff as well as that of his father over the suit land. The defendant disclosed that the suit land was recorded as Raitwadi and Pahadi and was infact government land which was allotted on lease to Janvikas trust Gwalior for the purpose of cancer hospital. The defendant further pleaded that the said suit land is presently not in possession of the plaintiff. The trial court after marshalling the evidence adduced found that the plaintiff's witness no. 3 Rajendra Agarwal concurring with the pleadings of the plaintiff about his possession over the suit land, admitted in his cross examination in para 6 that the land belongs to the government, and that he had never seen the title deed of the said land with the plaintiff. This witness further admitted that from 16.11. 1999 to 16.12. 2009 there is no document to establish that the name of the plaintiff is recorded against the suit land. The trial court further found from the Exhibits brought on record ie Khasra Panchshala of the year Samvat 2027-2030, 2032-2035, 2037-2039 and 2041-2044 that the suit land was recorded as "Pahad" and in column 12 of the said Exhibit the name of the father of plaintiff was recorded. However, the material brought on record further disclosed as noticed by the trial court that though certified copy of the Khasra till Samvat 2044 was produced by the plaintiff but there was no revenue record brought on the record to demonstrate that on the date of filing of the suit plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. This deficiency was admitted by the plaintiff in his cross- examination. The trial court thus concluded that since plaintiff has not established his continued possession till filing of the suit, plaintiff cannot claim title by adverse possession. The first appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court by dismissing the FA.