Laxmi Prasad Patel vs State of Madhya Pradesh & others.

Appellants/original plaintiffs have filed this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 4.5.1998 passed by the District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil Appeal No.70-A/1997 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Amarwada, District Chhindwara on 27.1.1997 in Civil Suit No.64-A/1996. The trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the present appellants/original plaintiffs for the claimed relief of perpetual injunction in relation to disputed agricultural lands bearing survey nos.88/1, 89/1 and 95/1 of Gram Tendani of Tehsil Amarwada, whereas the District judge allowed the appeal filed by defendants Rajaram and Narayan and totally dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

It would be significant to mention here that during the pendency of this second appeal, original appellant No.2 Smt.Ganga Bai, who was mother of appellant No.1 Gaya Prasad had expired and her name has been deleted.

Original plaintifs Gaya Prasad alias Bhagchand and Bhaiyalal and their mother Ganga Bai filed a suit before the trial Court on 18.6.1993 on pleadings that defendant No.1 Rajaram and defendant No.2 Narayan are their close relatives. The above mentioned disputed lands bearing three different survey numbers having total area 7.457 hectares of village Tendani, Tehsil Amarwada is jointly owned by the plaintiffs and disputed lands are their ancestral lands and are jointly recorded in the names of plaintiffs in revenue record. The plaintiffs are cultivating the disputed lands under their Bhoomiswami rights. Defendants no.1 and 2 are not having any title and right in disputed lands. On 5.6.1993 when plaintiff No.1 reached to disputed lands for agricultural work, then the defendants No.1 and 2 after abusing obstructed and threatened him to kill. The matter was reported on the same day at police out-post Sangodi and thereafter defendants No.1 and 2 without any right had threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess. Thus the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants No.1 and 2 was sought to protect the possession of the plaintiffs.

Defendants No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement filed before the trial Court, pleaded that plaintiffs'' predecessor Padam after making conspiracy with the Revenue Inspector got his name recorded in revenue record over the disputed lands on 30.12.1981 without any right as previously disputed lands were recorded in revenue record from 1954-55 to the year 1981-82 continuously in the name of defendant No.2 Narayan, Komal and Phool Singh. The Revenue Inspector was not having any right to cause partition or to divide the survey numbers without noticing the defendants No.1 and 2. After death of Padam on 11.1.1985, the plaintiffs got their names mutated in revenue record in relation to disputed lands after making conspiracy with the Revenue Inspector. Due to this illegal mutation, neither Padam nor plaintiffs have acquired any title or right in disputed lands. Actually, defendant No.2 Narayan and legal representatives of his brothers Komal and Phool Singh are possession-holders over the total lands of original survey numbers including above mention survey numbers of disputed lands. Actually, the plaintiffs had threatened on 25.4.1993 to dispossess the defendants No.1 and 2 and relating defendants reported the matter at police station Amarwada on 7.5.1993 and thereafter, the defendants No.1 and 2 had filed a previous civil suit, which was pending at that time. Thus, the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiffs should be stayed under Section 10 of the C.P.C. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. Thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed. No relief in suit was claimed against defendant No.3 State of M.P., who remained exparte before the trial Court.

The trial Court framed issues on pleadings of the parties. Before the trial Court for plaintiffs, Patwari Lalta Prasad (P.W.1) and plaintiff No.1 Gaya Prasad alias Bhagchand (P.W.2) were examined and for defendants No.1 and 2, Narayan (D.W.1) and his witness Bhola (D.W.2) were examined. The trial Court recorded the findings that the plaintiffs as recorded Bhoomiswami are in possession of the disputed lands and the defendants no.1 and 2 are trying to interfere in the plaintiffs'' possession and consequently decreed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction. Original defendant No.1 Rajaram and defendant No.2 Narayan filed regular appeal before the District Judge, Chhindwara, who had allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs'' suit totally, hence this second appeal has been filed by the original plaintiffs.

The learned counsel for the appellants Shri R.P.Mishra vehemently contended that the learned District Judge on erroneous presumption has reversed the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, as from revenue record, it was clear that the disputed lands were under the title and possession of the plaintiffs only.

It would be significant to mention here that in the plaint filed before the trial Court, pedigree of the family was not given, though it is given in memo of second appeal. The plaint filed before the trial Court is totally silent on the point of any partition of joint family property or ancestral property between Padam and his other real brothers Komal, Phool Singh and Narayan (original defendant No.2), who were sons of Nokhelal. It was only pleaded that the disputed property are Khandani lands of the plaintiffs, though original defendants No.1 and 2 were shown close relatives of the plaintiffs.

It is well settled that evidence given by any party beyond the limits of its pleadings is to be ignored. Plaintiff No.1 Gaya Prasad alias Bhagchand (P.W.2) deposed in his cross-examination (para 6) that his father had purchased the disputed lands from an adivasi (a scheduled tribe man), though he remained unable to disclose the name of seller adivasi and deposed that he has not filed any saledeed relating to it. Thus, it is clear that there is material contradictions between the pleadings and evidence of plaintiff No.1 Gaya Prasad alias Bhagchand (P.W.2). If the disputed lands were purchased by Padam from any adivasi, then the disputed lands could not be ancestral or joint family property and in absence of pleading about purchase of disputed lands by predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiffs i.e. Padam from any adivasi and in absence of original sale-deed or its certified copy, it is clear that the evidence of plaintiff No.1 Gaya Prasad alias Bhagchand (P.W.2) is totally false and unbelievable on this point, which also establishes falsehood of plaintiffs'' case.

Plaintiffs have filed only a copy of kistbandi khatauni for the year 1994-95 and proved it as Ex.P.1 in which plaintiffs'' names are recorded in the column relating to names of Bhoomiswami in reference to disputed lands, but plaintiffs have not filed any other copy of revenue record relating to disputed lands for any of the previous years. Though plaintiffs have filed five years khasras (Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4), but they are not related to disputed lands. Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4 are related to lands of some different survey numbers from the years 1972-73 to 1987-88, but surprisingly in revenue record of lands of other survey numbers, joint names of Padam and his three real brothers Komal, Phool Singh and Narayan, all sons of Nokhe, are recorded. Plaintiff no.1 Gaya Prasad alias Bhagchand (P.W.2) and Narayan (D.W.1) have clearly deposed that Padam was the eldest brother.

Relating Patwari Lalta Prasad (P.W.1) in his cross-examination deposed that he worked from the year 1965 till 1971 in the same halka number as Patwari in relation to village Tendani and he clearly deposed that during his tenure in revenue record, only names of three brothers Komal, Phool singh and Narayan (original defendant No.2) were recorded in relation to disputed lands and these three brothers were actually having possession over the disputed lands. At the time of his deposition, Patwari Lalta Prasad (P.W.1) brought misal bandobast and deposed that disputed lands were previously recorded and included in survey nos.88, 89 and 95 and from the year 1954-55, the original survey numbers were recorded in the names of Komal, Phool singh and Narayan, all sons of Nokhe and he also proved Ex.D.2 filed by the defendants and he also proved Ex.D.1, which was khasra nakal of the year 1914-15 and in that year, original survey nos.88, 89 and 95 were recorded in the name of Bhura son of Murhi Pardhan.

From Ex.D.1, it is clear that the disputed lands were not recorded in the names of Nokhe, who was father of four brothers Padam, Komal, Phool Singh and Narayan. Original defendant No.2 Narayan (D.W.1) deposed that previously disputed lands belonged to Bhura son of Murhi Pardhan about fifty years ago, thereafter, for some years lands remained barren and thereafter, he i.e. Narayan (original defendant No.2) with two other brothers Komal and Phool Singh possessed it and only their names i.e. Komal, Phool Singh and Narayan were recorded in the revenue record and after death of Komal and Phool Singh, with their legal representatives, he was in possession. Admittedly, Padam was the eldest brother. If disputed lands would have been joint family or ancestral property, then it would not have been possible that name of Padam would not have been recorded in relation to disputed lands. Thus, the documentary evidence in relation to disputed lands produced by the defendants and also proved by the Patwari, witness of plaintiffs, Lalta Prasad (P.W.1) clearly establishes that the disputed lands were not previously ancestral or joint family property of the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest i.e. Padam. Learned District Judge has properly and legally appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and had not erred in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It is clear that the trial Court had totally ignored and overlooked the documentary evidence proved by the defendants and relating Patwari Lalta Prasad (P.W.1). It is clear that the findings recorded by the trial Court were totally perverse and not supported by the evidence available on record and learned lower Appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the appellants/original plaintiffs'' suit.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any substance or circumstance in the matter giving rise to any question of law rather than substantial question of law. Consequently, this appeal is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. There shall be no order as to costs.