BABU SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RAMJANKI AND OTHERS
LAWS(MPH)-2015-11-21
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on November 05,2015

Babu Singh And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Ramjanki And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NAFAZAT HUSSAIN VS. ABDUL MAJEED AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANAN RAJENNDRA VS. LEKSHMY SAROJINI [REFERRED TO]
D R RATHNA MURTHY VS. RAMAPPA [REFERRED TO]
VISHWANATH SITARAM AGRAWAL VS. SARLA VISHWANATH AGRAWAL [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. IBRAHIM UDDIN [REFERRED TO]
VANCHALABAI RAGHUNATH ITHAPE VS. SHANKARRAO BABURAO BHILARE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.S.JHA, J. - (1.)This appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11 -11 -2003, passed by the First Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur in C.A.No. 17 -A/2002 affirming and confirming the judgment and decree dated 20 -2 -2002, passed by Civil Judge Class -II, Laudi, District Chhatarpur in C.S.No. 73 -A/1989 whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
(2.)The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the appellants asserted that they were in possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 521, area 3.20 decimal situated at village Ghathari, Tahsil Gourihar, District Chhatarpur since Samvat 2013. It was asserted that the land has been given in sub -lease to them by the original owner Gajadhar on the condition that they would continue to deposit land revenue. It was stated that the appellants were in possession of the land since then which matured into Bhumiswami rights in view of the provisions of Sections 190/110 of the M.P.L.R. Code.
It was asserted that the the respondent tried to dispossess the appellant on 20 -8 -1989 on account of which the appellants were forced to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In the suit it was alleged that the appellants had acquired Bhumiswami rights as they were in possession of the land since long and, therefore, perfected their title on account of adverse possession and that they were continuously cultivating the land in dispute and, therefore, they were entitled to injunction.

(3.)Both the Courts below have found that the appellants had not produced any document of title or document of lease alleged to have been executed by Gajadhar to indicate the nature of possession and they have also not proved or established that they were in possession of the land in dispute since Samvat 2013, except for producing document Ex.P - 1 to Ex.P -5 which are the Khasra entries. Both the Courts below have held that the appellants have failed to establish their possession on the land in dispute or that they have perfected their title by adverse possession and have dismissed the suit.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.