Hari Singh vs State of M.P.

Sheel Nagu, J.—Matter is heard and reserved for orders.

This second appeal filed Section 100 CPC assails the concurrent findings rendered by both the Courts below rejecting the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiffs seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the agricultural suit property.

Plaintiff brought the suit in question on the factual matrix that the suit land as in SAMVAT 2007 belonged to Mansingh Dangi who was a Zamindar. On abolition of Zamindari, name of Mansingh Dangi was deleted from the Government record and the land was recorded as Government land, but the possession of said Mansingh Dangi who was the grand father of the plaintiff continued. Mansingh Dangi died, whereafter the father of appellant Bundel Singh continued in possession of the suit land. Name of the father of plaintiff was recorded in the revenue records. Since the death of father of the plaintiff, which took place about 12 years before filing of the suit, the plaintiff is in peaceful and uninterrupted possession, but his name has not been recorded in the revenue records. Proceedings u/S 57 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code were initiated by the plaintiff for recording his name as the title holder of the suit land, but to no avail. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit in question seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction against the State.

Per contra, the defendant State by filing its written statements submitted that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land for having been evicted and even if the plaintiff does hold possession of the suit land, then the same is in capacity of a ranked encroacher. The State further informed that the suit land has already been allotted to landless persons who have not been impleaded by the plaintiff, despite being necessary party. Thus, the State sought dismissal of the suit on merit and as well as for non-joinder of necessary party. Plaintiff before the Courts below attempted to establish his title over the suit land on the basis of adverse possession.

The Courts below found the stand of plaintiff to be contradictory. On the one hand, the plaintiff averred that the suit land devolved upon him from his ancestors, while on the other hand plaintiff tries to raised the plea of adverse possession. The Courts further found that the plaintiff in his cross-examination admitted paying fine for possessing the Government land which led the Courts below to conclude that possession of the appellant is not uninterrupted. The Courts below on scrutinizing the statement of the plaintiff''s witness Rambabu and the other prosecution witness Rajesh found that notices for removal of encroachment were received by the plaintiff and that the notices categorized the plaintiff as encroacher over Government land. PW3 Rajesh has further expressed his ignorance, as to how the suit land came in possession of the plaintiff. Thus, the Courts below concluded that State has never treated the possession of the plaintiff to be peaceful and uninterrupted and therefore the ground of adverse possession for claiming title over the suit land was held to be not established. The Courts also found by perusing the revenue records from 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 that the suit land is recorded is Charnoi with the plaintiff''s name recorded as encroacher.

In view of the above said factual findings, which are concurrent in nature of both the Courts below, it is obvious that the ground of adverse possession for claiming title over the suit land could not be established by the plaintiff. Reliance has been placed by the plaintiff on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Puran Singh and Others Vs. The State of Punjab, . This decision by the Apex Court lays down the law on the aspect of adverse possession, which has been further explained by the same Court in the case of Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and Another, .

The said decisions of the Apex Court lays down the necessary attributes for settled possession to be established before a case of adverse possession can be made out.

However, the factual foundation before the Apex Court was as to whether failure of the plaintiff to establish title by adverse possession can lead to denial of decree of permanent injunction. The Apex Court after going through the findings rendered in the impugned order of High Court therein held that establishment of title is not a pre-requisite for claiming decree for permanent injunction. It was so held by the Apex Court after finding plaintiff to be in settled possession of the suit property therein, despite having failed to establish title. This decision of Apex Court is of no avail to the appellants since in the instant case, even the aspect of settled possession could not be established by the plaintiff.

Accordingly, in the limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, this Court does not see any ground to interfere. There is no scope for framing of any substantial question of law in the instant case, which is accordingly dismissed sans cost.