Shyamlal vs The State of M.P.

J.K. Maheshwari, J.—This appeal is by plaintiffs directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2004 passed by the District Judge, Vidisha in Civil Appeal No. 67A/2004 confirming the findings recorded by Civil Judge, Class-I, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 112-A/2003 by judgment and decree dated 26.8.04 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession has been dismissed while injunction to the extent of dispossession by following due process of law has been directed.

The plaintiffs'' case in brief was that they are in possession of the area 0.519 Hectare out of 1.254 Hectare of the disputed Survey No. 29/1/2 and of area 0.146 hectare of the disputed Survey No. 29/2/2 the total area 0.665 Hectare since last 35-40 years. However by virtue of adverse possession they have acquired the title interest in the suit property. It is further prayed that having possession on the said land they are entitled to seek injunction restraining defendant to not to interfere in their possession.

Defendant filed the written statement denying the plaint averments inter alia contended that the Patta to the said land has been granted to Narayan Singh, Babulal and Bhawarlal in the year 1986-87, therefore the suit seeking declaration and injunction may be dismissed.

After framing the issue and adducing the evidence by the parties trial court as well as appellate court recorded the findings that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their continuous peaceful possession hostile to real owner. However suit seeking declaration was dismissed while plaintiffs were found in possession therefore it was directed that they be evicted by following the due process of law. Being aggrieved by the said judgment this appeal has been preferred.

Shri Sagoria learned counsel representing the appellants has argued with vehemence and submitted that the possession of the appellants was found on the suit land, in such circumstances two Courts below committed error to dismiss the suit seeking declaration though he is in settled possession since last more than 30 years. In such circumstances the finding of fact recorded by two courts is perverse. In view of the foregoing substantial question arises for determination, this appeal therefore may be admitted for final hearing.

Shri R.P. Rathi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has argued in support of the finding recorded by the two courts below declining the relief seeking declaration on the basis of adverse possession. It is urged that concurrent findings of fact do not warrant interference being not perverse. In view of the evidence brought on record, the findings as recorded, cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore, interference cannot be warranted and no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it reveals that the plea regarding possession on the suit land since last 35-40 years has been alleged in the pleadings but to substantiate the said, revenue entries showing possession for the last 30 years has not been produced. In absence of continuous physical and peaceful possession of the plaintiff, the finding of fact recorded by the two courts below to dismiss the suit seeking declaration of title on adverse possession do not warrant any interference. So far as the relief of temporary injunction is concerned, the finding recorded by the two courts below to not dismiss the possession of appellant following due process of law is hereby affirmed.

In view of the foregoing discussion, in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.

However, it is dismissed at admission stage.