Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Lachibai And Others on 4 July, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14561
1 S.A. No. 199 of 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 4th OF JULY, 2025
SECOND APPEAL No. 199 of 2001
STATE OF M.P.
Versus
LACHIBAI AND OTHERS AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.S. Kushwaha, Government Advcoate for appellant/State.
None for respondents though served.
JUDGMENT
Today this case is listed for final hearing at motion stage.
2. This appeal has been filed, under S.100 of CPC, against judgment and decree dated 16/02/2001 passed by Additional District Judge Mungawali, District Guna in Civil Appeal No.9A/93, by which judgment and decree dated 16/3/1993 passed by Civil Judge Class II Chanderi, District Guna in Civil Suit No.44A/89 has been set aside.
3. This appeal was admitted by order dated 15.5.2001 on the following substantial question of law:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:59:58 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14561 2 S.A. No. 199 of 2001 (1) Whether in the absence of pleading of adverse possession mere finding of long possession is sufficient to hold that plaintiffs have acquired the title by adverse possession ?
(2) Whether inconsistent plea of lease and adverse possession can be taken together to decree the suit ?
4. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that original plaintiff is Motilal who expired during the pendency of suit. Accordingly, his legal representatives were brought on record, who are respondents in the present appeal.
Original plaintiff filed a civil suit claiming that survey number 80/1, area 2.508 hectares is in his possession for the last 41 years. The said land was given to plaintiff on lease by Sher Singh, Zamindar of Village Kondhiyai by verbal agreement for carrying out agricultural activities. The land was recorded as Government land and from the year 1957 it was recorded as Charnoi land, but neither the land is Charnoi land nor Government land. The land was given by the then zamindar to the original plaintiff for cultivation purposes in Samvat 2008 i.e., year 1951 and accordingly after abolition of Zamindari rights, the original plaintiff became Pucca Krishak and after coming into force of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, he became the Bhumiswami. However, the land was never recorded in the name of original plaintiff because of illegal act of defendant number 5. Even otherwise, if it is found that the plaintiff never became Pucca Krishak, but as he is in possession of the land in dispute, therefore he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession.
5. The defendants filed their written statement and denied that the land in dispute was ever given on verbal agreement by the then Zamindar to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:59:58 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14561 3 S.A. No. 199 of 2001 plaintiff. Possession of plaintiff was also denied. It was further claimed that since plaintiff had never been in possession of the land in dispute, therefore there was no question of mutation of his name in the revenue records. On the date of abolition of Zamindari rights, plaintiff was not in possession of the land in any capacity. No Bhumiswami rights had ever accrued in favour of plaintiff.
6. The trial court, after framing issues and recording evidence, dismissed the suit.
7. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal primarily on the principle of continuity of possession. The appeal has been decreed by Additional District Judge, Mungavali, District Guna, by judgment and decree dated 20.2.1996 passed in Civil Appeal Number 9A of 1993.
8. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, it is submitted by counsel for appellant/State that even according to the plaintiff, his name was not recorded in the revenue records. However, he relied upon Khasra Panchshala of Samvat 2026 (Ex.P/4) i.e., year 1969, in which the name of plaintiff was mentioned in column number 12 and 14 for the first time. The aforesaid entry has been made in red ink but it has not been countersigned by anybody. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that even if it is presumed that plaintiff had encroached upon Government land in Samvat 2026 i.e. year 1969, then his case that he was given the land by oral agreement by the then Zamindar is false. Plaintiff had taken self- contradictory stand. On one hand he had claimed that he was granted right to cultivate the land by the ex-Zamindar by oral agreement and at the same time Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:59:58 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14561 4 S.A. No. 199 of 2001 he has claimed that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. It is prayed that for maintaining the plea of adverse possession the aspirant must admit the title of true owner. Therefore, two self-contradictory pleas cannot be taken.
9. None appears for the respondent though served.
10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant.
11. Respondent had filed the suit on the ground of title and adverse possession. Plaintiff in his plaint had not stated that in which year he was granted permission to cultivate the land orally by Sher Singh. There is nothing on record to show that Sher Singh was even Zamindar of village Kondhiyai. No document has been filed by appellant to show that land belonged to Sher Singh as Zamindar. Nothing has been placed on record to show when the right to cultivate the land was given by Sher Singh to the original plaintiff.
12. Sirnam Singh (PW1) has admitted that the land was not given by Sher Singh to his father (original plaintiff) in his presence. He further admitted that Sher Singh had never issued any receipt of payment of rent/Lagaan. However, he claimed that by the time he became major, the concept of payment of Lagaan had stopped. This witness had also admitted that he had not seen any document pertaining to ownership of Sher Singh. He was also unable to explain up to what date the land remained in ownership of Sher Singh and when it became government land. He admitted that zamindari rights were abolished in Samvat 2007 i.e., year 1950. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the land in dispute was in ownership of Sher Singh. Plaintiff has also failed to prove that Sher Singh was Zamindar. Plaintiff has Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:59:58 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14561 5 S.A. No. 199 of 2001 also failed to prove when the land was given to original plaintiff by Sher Singh for cultivation purposes.
13. Thus, it is clear that there is no convincing ocular evidence in favour of plaintiff to prove that land in question was ever given to original plaintiff by ex-Zamindar for cultivation purposes. Even otherwise there is no documentary evidence with regard to ownership of Sher Singh of the land in dispute as zamindar. Thus, the evidence which has been led by plaintiff that the land in question was given by Sher Singh by oral agreement for cultivation purposes is misconceived and the appellate Court has committed material illegality by giving such finding.
14. Even otherwise, if it is held that plaintiff was in continuous possession, then in absence of the fact that the said possession was hostile and open to the knowledge of true owner, long and continuous possession cannot be treated as adverse possession. There is no pleading in the plaint that when possession of plaintiff became adverse to the State Government. There is no specific pleading that when the original plaintiff came in possession of the land in dispute for the first time. The Khasra entries which have been relied upon by the plaintiff are not supported by any corresponding order of the revenue authority. It is well-established principle of law that any Khasra entry without there being any corresponding order has no sanctity in the eyes of law. Thus, reliance placed by the appellate Court on the Khasra entry which is not supported by corresponding order is also not correct.
Furthermore, inconsistent plea of title and adverse possession cannot be taken simultaneously. The Supreme Court in the case of Narasamma & Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:59:58 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14561 6 S.A. No. 199 of 2001 Ors. Vs. A. Krishnappa (dead) through Lrs decided on 26/08/2020 in Civil Appeal No.2710/2010 has held as under:-
32. In Karnataka Board of Wakf case, it has been clearly set out that a plaintiff filing a title over the property must specifically plead it. When such a plea of adverse possession is projected, it is inherent in the nature of it that someone else is the owner of the property. In that context, it was observed in para 12 that "....the pleas on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced...."
33. The aforesaid judgment in turn relied upon the judgment in Mohan Lal (Deceased) Thr. LRs., which observed in para 4 as under:
"4. As regards the first plea, it is inconsistent with the second plea. Having come into possession under the agreement, he must disclaim his right thereunder and plead and prove assertion of his independent hostile adverse possession to the knowledge of the transferor or his successor in title or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his illegal possession during the entire period of 12 years, i.e., upto completing the period of his title by prescription nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. Since the appellant's claim is founded on Section 53-A, it goes without saying that he admits by implication that he came into possession of the land lawfully under the agreement and continued to remain in possession till date of the suit. Thereby the plea of adverse possession is not available to the appellant."
34. In order to establish adverse possession an inquiry is required to be made into the starting point of such adverse possession and, thus, when the recorded owner got dispossessed would be crucial.
15. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that neither the plaintiffs could prove that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession nor they could prove that the land in question was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:59:58 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14561 7 S.A. No. 199 of 2001 given to the original plaintiff by Sher Singh by oral agreement for cultivation purposes. Under these circumstances, it is held that the appellate Court committed material illegality by setting aside judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
16. The substantial questions of law, as quoted in paragraph 3 above, are answered in the negative.
17. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 16/02/2001 passed by Additional District Judge Mungawali, District Guna in Civil Appeal No.9A/93 is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree dated 16/3/1993 passed by Civil Judge Class II Chanderi, District Guna in Civil Suit No.44A/89 is, hereby, affirmed.
18. Appeal succeeds and is allowed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (and) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 7/17/2025 11:59:58 AM