BRAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23/12/2009 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 19 -A/2007 confirming the judgment and decree dated 18/9/2003 in Civil Suit No. 53 -A/2002. Plaintiff/appellant's suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit inter alia contending that the suit property is of old survey No. 242 admeasuring 1 bigha 17 biswa in village Khaneta, new survey No. 1512 rakba 0.40 aare. Plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the suit land for last 30 years doing cultivation and harvesting crops, however, due to interference by the respondents/State apprehending forcible dispossession plaintiff is left with no other alternative than to file the instant suit for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) TRIAL Court, on the basis of aforesaid pleadings, framed issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Trial Court on critical evaluation of the evidence on record dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate court re -appreciated the entire evidence on record. The main trust of the argument was that by virtue of the Khasra entry of Samvat 2007, wherein plaintiff's father's name is mutated in respect of the suit land, Bhoomiswami right has been transferred upon them. The first appellate court in paras 8 and 11 of the impugned judgment has critically examined the Khasra Panchshala entries brought on record vide Ex. P/1 to P/9 and found in Khasra Panchshala of Samvat 1993, in respect of the suit land in the Bhoomiswami, Khata Khevat No. 12 is written and as an agriculturist name of Mungaram is shown. Land is shown to be Kishmi Padti Kadeem. In Samvat 2007 in column No. 3 both survey Nos. 242 and 248 are recorded in the name of Mungaram, however, in Samvat 2008 the quality of land is shown to be Padti Kadeem. From Samvat 2017 to 2020 plaintiff or his ancestors were not shown to be in possession. From Samvat 2021 to 2022 again no one is shown to be in possession. From Samvat 2023 to 2024 name of Ramcharan s/o Mungaram is shown. Again from Samvat 2026 to 2027 no one's name is mentioned. From Samvat 2028 to 2031 name of Ratiram s/o Mungaram is shown. Thereafter, as per the evidence on record though the plaintiff was said to be cultivating the land from 1998 to 2002, but at the same time he was found to be an encroacher and was dispossessed many a times. Fine was also imposed. Therefore, on such examination of evidence, it is found that plaintiff cannot be said to be in continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession over the suit land, which is a government land, for last 30 years to claim title thereupon.