Surat Singh and Another vs Sarpanch and Another

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard.

The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2004 passed by the IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, in Civil Appeal No. 64-A/2003 wherein the judgment and decree dated 5.04.2000 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge Class-II Chhindwara in Civil Suit No. 181-A/1998 has been affirmed and confirmed and the suit filed by the appellants for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, are that the appellants had filed a suit for declaration of title over Khasra No. 397, Area 1.01 Acres situated in village Sankh, Tehsil and District Chhindwara and for permanent injunction. The suit had been filed claiming title on the basis of adverse possession of the land in question for more than 35 years. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit by recording a finding to the effect that the possession of the appellants was not open, hostile and continuous for a period of more than 30 years and have accordingly dismissed the suit.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the finding recorded by both the courts below is not in accordance with law as the appellants were in possession of the land in question for more than 35 years.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, it is observed that the courts below have recorded a categorical and concurrent finding of fact to the effect that the appellants have failed to establish their possession over the land for a period of more than 30 years in view of the fact that Exhibits P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-4, which are the khasra entries, do not show the possession of the appellants which fact is established by the statement of the appellants'' witnesses themselves P.W.-1 Tejilal, P.W.-2 Kisan, P.W.-3 Sewak, P.W.-4 Daan Singh and P.W.-5 Suresh Singh. The courts below have also recorded a finding that the appellants'' possession has been recorded in the khasra entries of the year 1981-82 to 1984-85 only as per Exhibit P-3 & P-4. The courts below have also taken into consideration the statement of plaintiff''s witness P.W.-5 Suresh Singh who has categorically stated that proceedings u/s 148 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code was initiated against the appellants and orders for their eviction was passed by imposing a cost of Rs. 100/-.

The courts below, taking note of the aforesaid documents, have recorded a categorical and concurrent finding that the appellants were not in continuous possession of the land in question for more than 30 years and that there was a break for a long period of time. The finding, recorded by the courts below, is based on proper analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record and does not suffer from any perversity.

In the circumstances, I do not find any substantial question of law arising for adjudication in the present appeal. The finding, recorded by the courts below, being concurrent finding of fact, do not warrant any interference by this Court. The appeal, filed by the appellants, being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.