Govind Singh vs State of M.P.

Rohit Arya, J.—This appeal by plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25/4/2009 in Civil Appeal No. 5-A/2008 confirming the judgment and decree dated 25/2/2008 in Civil Suit No. 125-A/2007. Plaintiff''s suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

In the plaint it is averred that prior to abolition of Zamindari since 1950 father of plaintiff has all along been in possession of the suit land falling in Khasra No. 436 admeasuring 0.648 hectare, Khasra No. 437 admeasuring 1.000 hectare, Khasra No. 391 admeasuring 2.916 hectare and Khasra No. 399 admeasuring 0.711 hectare situated in village Khamkheda, Tahsil and District Vidisha. After death of his father, plaintiff and his brothers claim to be in joint possession of the suit land and they have also partitioned the suit land amongst themselves. As such, for last 30 years plaintiff is in continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the suit land hostile to the knowledge of the State Government. It is claimed that plaintiff has acquired title by adverse possession. However, having apprehension of being forcibly dispossessed, plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

Defendant/State filed written statement and denied plaint allegations. It is submitted that plaintiff is an encroacher, who has been dispossessed and the suit land has been given by the State to the landless persons. With the aforesaid pleadings, suit was prayed to be dismissed.

On aforesaid pleadings, trial court framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of evidence on record with due advertence to the pleadings of the parties, trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, first appellate court has re-appreciated the evidence on record particularly revenue records. In Khasra Panchshila for the period since Samvat 2020 to 2024 name of plaintiff''s father is shown as an encroacher. In the year 1968-69 the suit land is described as Kadeem Beed and neither plaintiff''s nor his father''s possession is shown. In Khasra Panchshila (Ex. P/7) of Samvat 2026 to 2030 suit land is described as Padat Kadeem and as a government land and name of Govind Singh is shown as an encroacher. In Khasra Panchshila for the period since Samvat 2031 to 2034 (Ex. P/8) the suit land is shown as Charnoi and in column Nos. 14, 16 and 18 plaintiff is shown to be an encroacher. It is also mentioned therein that vide order dated 20/1/1979 plaintiff has been dispossessed. In Khasra Panchshila for the period since Samvat 2035 to 2039 suit land is shown to be reserved as Charnoi land. As such, the suit land has all along been shown to be the government land. In some entries in Khasra Panchshal plaintiff''s and his father''s name is shown to be as an encroacher. There is no documentary evidence on record to establish right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. Even otherwise, there is no evidence to establish the claim of plaintiff of being in possession of the suit land for last 30 years. On such premises, the first appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

Having perused the judgments impugned on record and the submissions advanced, this Court is of the view that in fact and in effect entire gamut of the matter is in the realm of facts. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded the findings to the effect that the claim of plaintiff of being in possession of the suit land for last 30 years is not established by the evidence led and, therefore, assertion of plaintiff of perfection of title by adverse possession has been negated. Findings so recorded, in the opinion of this Court, are impregnable in nature. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal warranting interference u/s 100 of CPC. Appeal sans merits is hereby dismissed.