Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt.Kalawati Alias Kaladevi vs Bhola Prasad on 19 October, 2015

                               1
                        S.A. No.967/2007


19.10.2015
     Shri B. M. Dwivedi learned counsel for the
appellant.
     Heard on the question of admission.
     The appellant has filed this appeal being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
28.2.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge
Beohari, District Shahdol, in Civil Appeal No.4-
A/2006 affirming and confirming the judgment and
decree dated 8.2.2005 passed by the Additional Civil
Judge Class-I, Beohari, District Shahdol in Civil Suit
No.267-A/2000       whereby       the   suit   filed   by    the
appellant for declaration and permanent injunction
has been dismissed.
     The brief facts, leading to the filing of the
present appeal, are that the appellant had filed a
suit alleging that she was in possession of 5 acres of
land of Survey No.707/4 of Village Devgaon, Tehsil
Beohari,     District   Shahdol    since   long    and      had,
therefore, perfected her title on account of adverse
possession and had also got her name mutated in
the revenue records. It was alleged that inspite of
the aforesaid facts the respondents were interfering

in her possession, hence the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

Both the courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant has not acquired any title on the land on account of mutation and that the appellant has failed to prove and establish the exact date on which the appellant's possession was open, hostile and adverse to the interest of the respondents.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gurdwara Sahib vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, (2014) 1 SCC 669, I do not find any perversity or material irregularity in the finding recorded by the courts below giving rise to a substantial question of law as the claim for declaration of title based on adverse possession simplicitor is not maintainable.

It is also settled law that a person does not acquire title of the land merely on mutation and in such circumstances I do not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Rajendran and another Vs. Lekshmy Sarojini and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 264, Nafazat Hussain Vs. Abdul Majeed and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 189 and D.R.Rathna Murthy Vs. Ramappa, (2011) 1 3 S.A. No.967/2007 SCC 158 and Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, (2012) 8 SCC 148, Vanchala Bai Raghunath Ithape (dead) by LR Vs. Shankar Rao Babu Rao Bhilare (dead) by Lrs. and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 173].

The appeal filed by the appellant being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.

( R. S. JHA ) JUDGE mms/-