Gajraj Singh vs State of M.P.

J.K. Maheshwari, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal, filed by the plaintiff/appellant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2005 passed by the District Judge, Vidisha (M.P.) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 133A/2005 confirming the findings recorded in the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2005 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 4A/2003 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

It is said that the predecessor of the plaintiffs late Omkar Singh was in possession of the suit land. After his death, his sons Rajaram, Baldev Singh and Hameer Singh took over the possession. After the death of these three brothers, plaintiffs who are cousins have become Bhumiswami, acquired rights and have been in possession on the suit land since last more than 50 years. Thus, the suit seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and to grant injunction to protect possession was filed.

Defendant No. 1 filed the written statement denying the plaint averments and said that the plaintiffs were not in possession since last 50 years over the suit land. It is said that the Patta of the land bearing Survey No. 31 area 1.264 hectares was granted to defendants No. 2 to 5 and the possession was also delivered to them. It is further said that the plaintiff is not in continuous, peaceful possession hostile to the real owner, therefore, declaration as prayed cannot be directed.

Learned Courts below after framing issues and adducing the evidence by the parties arrived at a conclusion that producing the revenue entries of having possession on the land in question since last 50 years succeeding in suit seeking declaration on the basis of adverse possession has not been proved by cogent evidence. It is further held that the Patta of the disputed land has been granted to defendants No. 2 to 5, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to seek any injunction.

Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously urged that the disputed land is of Survey No. 31, 40 and 41. Patta was granted only to the extent of Survey No. 31 area 1.264 hectares as is apparent from the written statement itself, however, with respect to the other remaining survey numbers on which the plaintiff is in possession it can not be disturbed dispossessing him without following the due process of law. It is further submitted that the findings of facts recorded by the two courts below having title on the basis of adverse possession is also perverse, therefore, this appeal may be admitted formulating the substantial questions of law.

Shri R.P. Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State argued in support of the findings recorded by the two courts below and submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title has rightly been dismissed in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession hostile to the real owner. Therefore, such findings of facts do not warrant interference.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the plaintiff has not proved his case producing revenue entries showing his continuous, uninterrupted possession hostile to the real owner. In the absence thereto, interference in the findings of facts recorded by the two courts below concurrently do not warrant any interference.

So far as refusal of the injunction is concerned, it is suffice to observe that the Patta of the land in question has been granted only in respect of Survey No. 31 area 1.264 hectares but for the rest survey numbers i.e. 40 and 41 Patta was not granted. Thus, looking to the revenue entries showing possession of the appellant, it is directed that their possession can be disturbed only by taking the due process of law to the extent of remaining Survey Numbers i.e. 40 and 41.

In view of the foregoing, in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.

Consequently, appeal stands dismissed at motion hearing stage with the aforesaid observation.