Atibal Prasad vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on admission.

The appellant has preferred a civil suit No.229- A/2006 before Additional Civil Judge, Class-I to First Civil Judge, Class-I, Rewa at Sirmour for declaration of his title on the land bearing survey No.509 and 407, area 0.82 acres and 0.72 acres respectively of village Sonvarshakala, Tahsil - Sirmour, District - Rewa and also sought perpetual injunction in his title. Vide judgment and decree dated 21.6.2007, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Civil Appeal No.94-A/2007 was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.2008 by 4th Additional District Judge, Rewa.

The facts of the case, in short, are that, the appellant has preferred a civil suit that aforesaid property was allotted to Ramadheen, grandfather of the appellant. Concerned entry of that allotment is available in revenue record of the year 1924-25 (Sanwat 1980-99). Ramadheen had 4 sons and the land bearing survey No.407 was obtained by Sudarshan Ram, son of Ramadheen and father of the appellant. The appellant thereafter had received 1/3rd share in land bearing survey No.407. It is also pleaded that land bearing survey No.509 was also given to Sudarshan Ram after death of Ramadheen and that land was thereafter received by the appellant and therefore, the appellant was owner of 1/3rd of land bearing survey No.407 and the total area of survey No.509. In the revenue records, name of Sudarshan Ram was not mutated because he did not apply for the same. However, name of the appellant was mentioned in revenue records. Possession of the appellant on the suit land was of Bhoomiswami in nature since the year 1982. After sometime, name of two persons was mutated in the revenue records and name of he appellant was deleted, therefore, he preferred a suit for declaration and injunction that the State agency should not make any interference in the suit property.

The State has submitted a written statement denying all the averments made by the appellant and it was denied that the appellant has possession on the suit land at the time of filing of the suit. No title or Bhoomiswami rights were accrued to the appellant.

Civil Judge, Class-I, after framing the issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and after considering the evidence, the suit was dismissed. The appeal filed the appellant was also dismissed.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be apparent by the document, Ex.P/3 that in Sanwat 1980-89, suit land was shown in revenue records in the name of Ramadheen but, the appellant did not file the revenue records of the concerned land of that year when M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was enforced. It was for the appellant to prove that he had continuous possession since the period of his grandfather Ramadheen till the filing of the suit. No revenue entry is filed of the year 1959-60 and thereafter, up to 1982. An adverse inference is to be drawn that the appellant was not allotted the land as Bhoomiswami by the Government. Revenue entry, Ex.P/1 indicates that the land was registered in the name of M.P. Government. In remark column, the possession of the appellant was shown on survey No.509 but, in that document, a note was appended while issuance of the copy of that Khasra entry that the ink by which the entry of possession was done was different and it cannot be said that entry of the possession of the appellant was authentic. However, in absence of any right of Bhoomiswami, if the plea of adverse possession of the appellant is considered then, according to the document, Ex.P/2 in the year 2003-04 entry of Buddhsen and Ram Dayal is done respectively against survey Nos.407 and 509 and no possession of the appellant is mentioned, so if he had any adverse possession on the property then, at the time of filing of the suit i.e. on 9.9.2002, he was not found in the possession.

The appellant did not file any entry of the revenue record of the year 2001-02 and therefore, an adverse inference shall be drawn against the appellant. Hence, the appellant could not prove his possession on the suit property at the time of filing of the civil suit i.e. on 9.9.2002.

The appellant could not prove that any Bhoomiswami right was accrued upon him and when in the year 1991-92, the land was registered as Government land and entry of his possession is found doubtful, he did not file any entry of the revenue record of the year 2001-02 and hence, he could not show his continuous possession prior to the filing of the suit. On the other hand, it is found that someone else was in possession of the property at the time of filing of the civil suit then, no bhoomiswami right was accrued on the basis of adverse possession. Both the Courts below have rightly refused to declare the title of the land.

So far as the relief of perpetual injunction is concerned, it appears that the suit property was allotted to two different persons and if any interruption was to be done in possession of the appellant then, it could be done by those persons to whom the land was allotted by the State Government thereafter but, the appellant did not make those two persons to be party in the case and therefore, no order of perpetual injunction could be granted against the person, who was not party in the case. Both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants relating to perpetual injunction.

After considering the entire evidence of the parties and submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that no illegality or perversity is visible in the judgments passed by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law is involved in the present case, so that any interference can be done in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. It is not a good case in which the second appeal filed by the appellant Atibal Prasad may be accepted for final hearing. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.

Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below alongwith their records for information and compliance.