DADDU PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment of affirmance.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed the suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction as also for mandatory injunction for grant of lease in relation to suit land. Civil Judge, Class II, Panna by judgment and decree dated 25.3.1988 passed in Civil Suit No. 96A of 1987 dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and the Additional District Judge. Panna by judgment and decree dated 26.10.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10A of 1988 dismissed the appeal. Plaintiffs being aggrieved by the same have preferred this appeal.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs suit land is their ancestral property and they are in possession of the same for the last 40 years. According to the plaintiffs in the settlement of Samvat 2002, suit land was wrongly included as forest in the State of Ajaygarh, but the plaintiffs were cultivating the land on Harokha basis. It has been further stated by the plaintiffs that application was filed before Collector Panna for grant of Patta, but the same has been rejected on the ground that the land belonged to the Forest Department and they are not prepared to transfer it to the Revenue Department. Suit was heard ex -parte against the respondent. Both the Courts below on analysis of the evidence found that the plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of the suit land, but they negatived the case of the plaintiffs that they have perfected their title by adverse possession. While recording the aforesaid finding the Courts below have referred to the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses as also documents Ex. P -1 to Ex. P -15 from which it is apparent that the plaintiffs are cultivating the land on the basis of Harokha. Counsel for the appellant could not explain the exact meaning of the word Harokha, but he states that it is some kind of permission on certain condition. Courts below on the basis of the evidence have found that the possession of the plaintiffs was permissive and, therefore, they have not perfected their title by adverse possession. Findings recorded by the two Courts below are on appreciation of evidence which cannot be said to be perverse calling for interference in appeal.