GANPAT Vs. DARSHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS -appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 97-A/99 affirming the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 116-A/94.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Darshanlal filed a suit for declaration and possession with regard to suit land bearing Survey No. 62/3, area one hectare situated at village Rajnakhedi, Tehsil Raghogarh, District Guna against Pannalal and Ramkalibai. During pendency of the suit, Pannalal and Ramkalibai both died and their legal representatives have been brought on record. Present appellants are legal representatives of Pannalal and Ramkalibai.

(3.) THE trial Court after appreciation of evidence has held that the plaintiff was granted a valid lease deed of the suit land and earlier the defendants and their father were in possession of the suit land, but their possession cannot be said to be adverse because there was no pleading to this effect in the written statement filed by the defendants and even though from the evidence out of the total land only nine biswas of land was under cultivation and rest of the land was Padat and was being used for growing grass and grazing animals and in that circumstance the adverse possession of the defendant cannot be held to be proved. The trial Court negatived the plea of limitation with regard to possession raised by the defendants and decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court also affirmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court. During pendency of the appeal the appellants- defendants also filed an application for amendment in the written statement with regard to taking the plea of adverse possession. That prayer has been rejected by the lower appellate Court.