SHIV CHARAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs' second appeal under section 100 CPC and was admitted on 14.2.2006 for consideration on the following two substantial questions of law:

(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed the suit in question seeking declaration of his rights as bhumiswami of the land in question and injunction against the respondents. Plaintiff and his father Gabru Singh claimed to be bhumiswami of the land in question bearing survey No. 299 situated in village Sheetalpur, Tahsil Raghogarh, District Guna. It is a case of the plaintiffs that they are holder of the land bearing survey No. 300,301 and 302 which measuring 19 bighas 18 biswas. Plaintiffs' father died in Samvat 2010 and after death of his father name of the plaintiff was mutated by the Competent Authority of the Revenue Court vide order dated 26.6.1957. Accordingly revenue records were corrected, plaintiffs names were showing in the revenue records and is in their possession throughout. After the plaintiff got his names entered in the revenue records the authority concerned without hearing the appellant, corrected the revenue records and entered the name of respondent No. 2 - Dhokal Singh as holder of the land. Thereafter land was taken up into the Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings Act vide case No. 232-A-90/1974-75. The competent authority declared it as surplus land and the surplus land was vested in the State Government. After so vesting vide order dated 29.1.1976, a patta was granted to various villagers and when the patta was granted in the year 1982, plaintiffs came to know about the fact of deletion of their names and entering the name of Dhokal Singh in the revenue records. Therefore immediately thereafter they filed the suit seeking declaration and title. Suit is dismissed by the both Courts on the ground that the suit is barred by time. The ceiling proceedings were concluded vide order dated 29.1.1976 and the present suit filed after more than six years as barred by time. On merit it is held that the plaintiffs' have failed to prove that their names were entered in the revenue records and therefore rinding the plaintiffs having failed to prove proper entries in the revenue records, suit is dismissed on merit also.

(3.) SHRI Praveen Newaskar, Deputy Government Advocate for the State refutes the aforesaid and submits that in dismissing the suit on the ground of delay so also on merit, learned Courts below have not committed any error and substantial question of law framed are liable to be answered against the plaintiffs-appellants. He points out that when the ceiling proceedings were held plaintiffs had knowledge about the ceiling proceedings and both the Courts have recorded proper rinding and same does not warrant any interference.