Mathura Lal vs State of M.P.

Rohit Arya, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal by plaintiff/appellant u/s 100 of C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23/2/2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 43-A/2006 confirming the judgment and decree of trial Court dated 16/11/2006 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Lateri, District Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 173-A/1999. Plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction inter alia contending that in the knowledge of the defendant/State, he is in possession of the suit land ad-measuring 2 hectare out of total area 12.281 hectare falling in survey No. 87 (New No. 87/2) situated at village Bahadurpur, Tahsil Lateri, District Vidisha since Samwat 2026 (Year 1969). Suit land is surrounded by the land of plaintiff''s ownership and possession, as such plaintiff has acquired title over the suit land by adverse possession. Having apprehended forceful dispossession from the suit land, plaintiff filed the instant suit.

Defendant/State filed written statement inter alia contending that plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff earlier had also filed civil suit No. 16-A/98 in respect of the land falling in Khasra No. 88/1 and 88/2 which has been dismissed and the land falling in survey No. 87 is a Charnoi land. No one has right, title or interest over the same. With the aforesaid pleading, prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.

On aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence and upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, trial Court dismissed the suit.

On appeal, first appellate Court again re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. It was found that plaintiff has failed to establish his peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession over the suit land for last 30 years as alleged. The Court below found that oral evidence led by plaintiff suffers from inherent contradictions and worth not reliable. Upon perusal of the relevant Khasra Panchshala, Court below has held that though in some of the Khasras name of plaintiff has been shown as encroacher over the suit land but these stray entries in some of the Khasra that too as an encroacher would not establish the assertion of the plaintiff as regards perfection of title by adverse possession. To claim adverse possession over a government land, the plaintiff has legal obligation to establish continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the suit land for last 30 years. Evidence on record did not establish his claim. Therefore, upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, the first appellate Court has confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court.

As such Courts below have concurrently recorded findings of fact against the claim of plaintiff and dismissed the suit. In the opinion of this Court, the findings of fact as recorded by both the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and are in the realm of facts, which do not warrant any interference u/s 100 of CPC by this Court. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal sans merits, is hereby dismissed.