Phool Singh vs Hazaarilal

J.K. Maheshwari, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

This appeal is, by the plaintiff, directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2005 passed by the III Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Guna (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 102A/2004 whereby setting aside the judgment and decree of Civil Judge Class-I, Raghogarh, passed on 22.12.2000 in Civil Suit No. 105A/1998, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession has been dismissed.

On perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the plaintiff, inter alia, contended that Survey No. 31 area 1.923 hectares of village Todhra, Tahsil Raghogarh, District Guna (M.P.) has been alleged to be the land of joint ownership of plaintiff and defendants. It is said that he is the owner of the said land since last 28 years and on moving an application, Naib Tahsildar recorded his name in the revenue papers, however, by virtue of adverse possession, he has acquired title on the suit land therefore, declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession may be directed.

Defendants, by filing written statement, have denied the plaint averments but relationship has been admitted. It is further stated that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land as pleaded by him. It is said that about two years back, plaintiff was allowed to cultivate the disputed land, however, after lapse of said period, he refused to deliver the land to defendants, therefore, some dispute arose. Plaintiff does not acquire any title by virtue of adverse possession, however, the suit preferred by the plaintiff ought to have been dismissed.

The Trial Court relying the testimony of the plaintiff as well as the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar directed to declare the title of the plaintiff on the suit land on the basis of adverse possession. On preferring the appeal, the appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his continuous and peaceful possession as pleaded by him and in the absence thereto suit seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession cannot be decreed.

After hearing Shri Rajeev Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that except the pleading to have possession on the suit land, no documentary evidence particularly revenue entry showing possession of the plaintiff has been filed. Contrary to it, defendants have produced the documents whereby they were recorded as owner and also in possession of the land in question. In such circumstances, merely on the basis of oral evidence and as per the order Naib Tahsildar plaintiff cannot be declared as a titleholder on the basis of adverse possession on the land in question. As such, the lower appellate court has not committed any error to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff setting aside the finding of the trial court to decree the suit. In my considered opinion, no substantial question of law for determination arises in this appeal. Resultantly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.