Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagannath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2014
S.A. No. 146/2008 1.
12.2014 Shri R. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.10.2007 passed by Ninth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Appeal No. 150 A/2006 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.6.2005 passed by Ninth Civil Judge Class I, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 13 A/2003.
At the outset learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue raised in this appeal has been answered in Ratiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh : S.A. No. 147/2008 decided on 22.4.2012.
In Ratiram (supra), it has been held:
"11. On a bare perusal of the documentary evidence, this Court finds that no document has been filed by the plaintiff in order to prove his possession for last 30 years. Photocopies of necessary revenue records have been filed and they are Ex.P1 to P4(C). On bare perusal of the Khasra, Ex.P1(C) which is of year 1972-1973 to 1975-76, it is gathered that the possession of plaintiff has been mentioned upon the suit property and the same position is in Ex.P3-C which is a Khasra of the year 1976-77 to 1980-
81. However, in the later revenue records, possession of the State of Madhya Pradesh has been mentioned and in this regard I have gone through the Khasra Ex.P2-C which is of the year 1981-82 to 1984-85. The same position is also seen in the Khasra of the year 1986-87 to 1990- 91 (Ex.P-4). Hence, even if for some years, plaintiff's possession has been recorded as trespasser, it would not confer any right on him to claim Bhumiswami right by way of adverse possession. In the later years the possession of plaintiff is nowhere mentioned in the revenue records. The Supreme Court in Raja Durga Singh of Solon v. Tholu and others AIR 1963, SC 361 (Vol. 50 C 42) held that if there is any dispute of the entry in the revenue records, the later entry shall prevail. Since in the later entry, the possession of the State of M.P. has been recorded and there is no any other document on record in order to prove possession of the plaintiff. It is also not proved that plaintiff had acquired the Bhumiswami right by adverse possession.
12. Even otherwise, on going through the findings recorded by the two courts below, it does not transpire that plaintiff was possessing the suit property peacefully and continuously for the period of 30 years as owner in the knowledge of the State Government and, therefore, the question of acquiring Bhumiswami right by adverse possession does not arise.
13. The substantial question of law is thus answered that learned two courts below did not commit any error in dismissing the suit of plaintiff holding that he has not acquired any Bhumiswami right."
In view whereof the present appeal is also dismissed as no substantial question of law arises for consideration. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi