Udham Singh and Others vs State of M.P. and Others

Rohit Arya, J.—This judgment shall govern disposal of S.A. No. 254/2006(Udham Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.) and S.A. No. 256/2006 (Parvat Singh and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors) as both these appeals are arising out of common concurring judgment and decree dated 5/12/2005 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Ashok Nagar in Civil Appeal Nos. 146-A/2005 and 76-A/2005 respectively confirming the judgment and decree dated 27/8/2004 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Ashok Nagar in Civil Suit No. 203-A/ 2000 and 204-A/2000 respectively. Suits of plaintiffs of both these appeal for declaration and permanent injunction have been dismissed.

Facts necessary for disposal of appeal No. 254/2006 are to the effect that plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 203-A/2000 have made a claim over the suit property; agricultural land, described and detailed in para 2 of the impugned judgment by virtue of oral Patta allegedly given by erstwhile Zamindar before abolition of Zamindari. It is submitted that prior to Samwat 2007, since the plaintiffs have been in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit land, therefore after coming into force of MPLRC, have acquired right of Bhoomiswami in terms of Section 158 of MPLRC. It is further submitted that respondent/State at no point of time has ever questioned their right of possession over the suit land and plaintiffs have been found to be in possession thereof, cultivating the land and harvesting the crops. That apart, name of plaintiffs have all along been mutated in revenue record and they have been shown in possession of the suit land.

Per contra, by filing written statement, State has denied the plaint allegations. It is inter alia contended that the suit land is a government land and as per the revenue record, suit land is described as Chranoi land. Besides, it is denied that plaintiffs at any point of time had been in possession of suit land. It is further submitted that there was no Patta granted in favour of plaintiffs by erstwhile Zamindar as alleged in the plaint.

As regards second appeal No. 256/2006, plaintiffs in the instant suit have claimed rights over the suit land by virtue of oral Patta allegedly granted in favour of Udham Singh and others prior to abolition of Zamindari Act. It is submitted that in fact the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 203-A/2000 had played fraud. It is submitted that originally the Patta was in the name of Udham Singh and ors. However, the plaintiffs in civil suit No. 203-A/2000 after Samwat 2007 have made an interpolation and obliterated the name of Ramdayal and Udham Singh and also put their names. This is how they have manipulated the Khasras to claim title over the suit land. As a matter of fact they are entitled for protection of their rights over the suit land by virtue of Gair Maurusi Krashak under Section 158 of MPLRC. Hence, both the Courts below have committed grave error of law and fact while dismissed the instant suit.

Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State that in para 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment, first appellate Court has dealt with aforementioned submissions advanced by plaintiffs in civil suit No. 204-A/2000. Learned government counsel has also read over the findings recorded by the first appellate Court.

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

On appeal, the first appellate Court has again re- appreciated the entire evidence on record. The first appellate Court in para 5 and 6 of the impugned judgment has adverted to Khasra entries brought on record from Samwat 2007 to 2014 and found that entries made thereunder reflects interpolation thereof as the entries already exists were cut and name of plaintiffs were substituted, therefore, the documents were found to be suspicious in nature. Accordingly, first appellate Court has found that the entries made in the name of plaintiffs since are found of suspicious in nature, therefore, plaintiffs cannot be said to be in possession of the suit land. That apart, the first appellate Court has also found that there is no Patta on record allegedly granted by erstwhile Zamindar in favour of plaintiffs. Even the first appellate Court has also found that evidence led by the plaintiffs suffers from inherent contradictions and inconsistencies and therefore, had reached to the conclusion that plaintiffs failed to prove that they are in possession of suit land and have acquired the status of Pakka Krishak after coming into force the MPLRC. The first appellate Court has also negated the plea of adverse possession raised by plaintiffs on the ground that plaintiffs failed to establish their continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the suit land for last 30 years as required under the law of land to seek acquisition of title by adverse possession.

Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the findings recorded by the first appellate Court are perverse in nature and therefore, cannot be sustained. Plaintiffs deserve to be treated as hold the title of suit land by virtue of being in possession.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiffs in both the suits have made a claim over the suit land by virtue of oral Patta allegedly awarded by erstwhile Zamindar prior to abolition of Zamindari Act i.e. prior to Samwat 2007 in the name of Udham Singh and Ors. The allegation made in this suit that the name of Udham Singh and others were obliterated and name of plaintiffs were substituted, both the Court below have concurrently recorded pure findings of fact as regards admissibility of the aforesaid Khasras and found the same suspicious in nature. Accordingly, claims of both the plaintiffs have been rejected on the strength of Ex.P/1 and P/2.

Having perused the findings recorded by both the Courts below particularly by first appellate Court in para 5 to 8, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below after critically appreciating the evidence on record, rightly recorded the findings of fact which do not warrant interference by this Court under Section 100 of CPC. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arise in both these appeals. Appeals being bereft of merits, are hereby dismissed. However, it is considered apposite to observe before parting with the appeal that in the event plaintiffs are found in possession of suit land, they may not be dispossessed without due process of law.