LOKESH SANYAL Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BABU Singh, the original plaintiff (predecessor of the present appellants) instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendants/respondents in respect of immovable property, described in paragraph 1 of the plaint with the allegation that his rather Tandoor Singh had purchased the same from one Kashi Giri s/o Nanhe Giri for a consideration on Rs. 90/- on 24.3.1923. He continued to occupy the same as the owner and executed a will in favour of the plaintiff. Name of the plaintiff has been entered in the municipal record as the owner of the suit property. The suit property does not belong to the defendants/ respondents. Earlier, as pleaded, an attempt was made by the defendants/ respondents to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property and hence Civil Suit No. 1/88 was instituted by the plaintiff against the State of M.P. which was dismissed in default on 6.9.1989. Relief of restoration was negatived by the Court of first instance and also by the appellate Court. However, the Estate Officer/respondent passed an order on 21.12.1991 for eviction of the plaintiff under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short "the 1971 Act") without any authority of law which compelled the plaintiff to initiate the aforesaid civil action for a decree for declaration of title in his favour in respect to the suit property and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from causing any interference in his possession over the suit property.

(2.) DEFENDANTS /respondents No. 1 and 2 submitted a joint written statement contending thereby that the suit property is owned by Public Works Department and was let out by it to the M.E.S. Department on rent. Plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and has no right, title or interest in the same. Purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff's father on 24.3.1923 and his possession over the same has also been denied.

(3.) AFTER recording evidence, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as per impugned judgment and decree dated 11.7.2002 with the finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that Kashi Giri was the owner of the suit property and had the right to transfer the same in favour of the plaintiff's father. Learned trial Judge has further found that the plaintiff has also failed to establish the possession of his father and thereafter of him since 1923. Accordingly it has been held that the alleged possession of the plaintiff is not liable to be protected by grant of perpetual injunction.