Khushal Singh Raghuvanshi vs State of MP

Rohit Arya, J.—This appeal by the plaintiff under section 100 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09/12/2006 passed in civil appeal No. 68A/2006 by Additional District Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha confirming the judgment and decree dated 04/02/2006 passed in civil suit No. 162A/2003 by I Civil Judge, Class-II, Basoda, District Vidisha. Plaintiff''s suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that plaintiff claimed to be in possession over the suit land admeasuring 4.254 hectare in survey No. 6 situated in village Saloi, Tahsil Ganj Basoda District Vidisha since the time prior to Samvat 2005 (Year 1948). Plaintiff further asserted that he is in possession over the suit land for the last 30 years, uninterrupted, peaceful and continuous doing cultivation and harvesting crops. As such, perfected title by adverse possession against the respondent/State. Having apprehending forcible dispossession therefrom, instant suit has been filed.

Defendant/State filed written statement and denied plaint allegations inter alia contending that plaintiff has never been in possession over the suit land for the last 30 years as alleged. It is submitted that as per revenue record, the suit land reserved as charnoi land and the defendant/State has exclusive right over the same as it is Government land. With the aforesaid pleadings, defendant/State prayed for dismissal of the suit.

On the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the entire evidence on record, trial Court has dismissed the suit. On appeal, first appellate Court has again re-examined the entire oral and documentary evidence brought on record. As a matter of fact, the first appellate Court has taken cognizance of the fact that earlier suit bearing No. 469-A/1981 was dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 31/01/1984 by Civil Judge, Class-I, Basoda and the same was upheld in civil appeal No. 203A/96 vide judgment and decree dated 12/12/1996 by III Additional District Judge, Vidisha and further the same withstood judicial scrutiny in Second Appeal No. 105/1997 vide the judgment and decree dated 27/03/2003. However, the statement made before the Court by the plaintiff was contrary to the aforesaid documentary evidence. Besides, in exhibits P/4 to P/11, khasrapanchshala, the plaintiff has not been found to be in possession over the suit land by the first appellate Court. Therefore, the first appellate Court concluded that the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court was correct. Accordingly, first appellate Court affirming the findings of the trial Court and taking note of the earlier Courts'' judgments and decrees in respect of the suit land as detailed in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his uninterrupted, continuous and peaceful possession over the suit land. Hence, dismissed the suit based on adverse possession.

Law as regards as regards adverse possession is well settled. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India and Others, has observed as under :

In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won''t affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well - settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (see S.M. Karim Vs. Mst. Bibi Sakina, : Parsinni (Dead) by Lrs. and Others Vs. Sukhi and Others, and D.N. Venkatarayappa and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, Physical fact of exclusive possession and animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and possession and animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show : (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. Smt. Raj Kumar Sharma and others, .

Having gone through the concurrent impugned judgments rendered by the Courts below and the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below have recorded pure findings of fact based on proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record that the plaintiff failed to establish continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the suit land for the last 30 years as claimed and the suit land was rightly found to be reserved for charnoi purposes and dismissed the suit. As such, both the Courts below are fully justified in dismissing the suit of plaintiff. Findings so recorded are impregnable in nature. The entire gamut of matter is in realm of facts. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises warranting interference under section 100 of the Code.

Appeal sans merit and is dismissed accordingly.