Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sodrabai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2018
~1~
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SA No. 332/2017
Indore, Dated: 21/2/2018
Shri Manuraj Singh learned counsel for appellants.
Shri Piyush Shrivastava learned counsel for respondent.
Heard on the question of admission.
This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is at the instance of plaintiffs challenging the concurrent judgments of two courts below. Trial court by judgment dated 30th April, 2015 had dismissed the suit and the first appellate court by judgment dated 28/3/2017 by dismissing the appeal has affirmed the judgment of trial court.
The appellants had filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the plea that suit property was their ancestral property and has been recorded in their name in the revenue record but notice dated 7/8/2014 was given by Naib Tehsildar for evicting the appellants on the ground that an order was passed for entering the name Mafi Mandir Gopchand Maharaj in respect of land. Further plea of appellants was that the suit land was not a Mafi Land but it is continuing in the name of their ancestral. Alternatively the plea of perfection of title by way of adverse possession was also raised by appellants.
Respondents had filed their written statement taking the stand that the land is entered in the revenue record in the name of Mafi Shri Gopchandji Maharaj Chabutare Vake Deh Raja Manager Collector Shajapur. Further plea was raised that land does not belong to any particular person but it is the land of government Devsthan which is registered in Bandobast record as Mafi Shri Gopchandji Maharaj Manager Collector ~2~ Shajapur. It was also denied that the suit land was registered or in possession of the ancestors of the appellants.
Trial court after permitting the parties to lead evidence had found that appellants are not owner of the suit land nor they had perfected their title by way of adverse possession. The first appellate court has affirmed the said finding.
Learned counsel for appellants submits that the courts below have failed to take note of necessary ingredients of adverse possession and have committed an error in holding that appellants have not perfected their title by way of adverse possession.
Having heard the learned counsel for appellants and on perusal of the record it is noticed that both the courts below have examined the oral as well as documentary evidence in detail and have found that appellants could not prove their lawful possession on the suit land. It has also been found that the suit land is Mafi land which cannot be entered in the name of any private person because it is the land belonging to the deity of temple. It has further been found that appellants could not produce any document showing the source of title of their ancestors.
So far as the revenue entries are concerned, it has been found that on that basis no title had accrued to appellants. In this regard statement of DW-1 Rajesh Saxena Patwari of village to the effect that suit land on the basis of revenue record was of temple land has been found to be un-rebutted. The appellant's plea of adverse possession has also been examined by the courts below and it has been found that said plea has not been established.
~3~ Learned counsel for appellants has placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme court in the matter of Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & others reported in AIR 2009 SC 103 but in that case also it has been held that the person who claims his adverse possession is required to show that on what date he came into possession; what was the nature of possession; whether factum of possession was known to the other side; how long his possession has continued; and his possession was open and undisturbed.
A perusal of the record reveals that appellants have failed to establish these necessary ingredients for proving the plea of adverse possession.
The issue which the appellants is raising in this appeal is concluded by the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below.
The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge BDJ Digitally signed by Bhuneshwar Datt Date: 2018.02.26 14:34:50 -08'00'