The duty of the State Government to produce relevant records and the consequences of withholding evidence in a dispute involving possession and rights to agricultural land.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by defendant-State Government assailing the judgment of reversal passed by learned First Appellate Court allowing the appeal of plaintiff and thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dismissing his suit.

2. In brief the suit of plaintiff is that the suit property which is agricultural land and the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint and which is the subject-matter of the suit is in possession of plaintiff since 1935-36 i.e. for last 50-51 years prior to the date of filing of the suit which was filed on 20-1-1986. According to the plaintiff after putting hard labour by flowing his sweat he made the land in question cultivable and his possession is hostile against the State and he has acquired Bhumiswami right by adverse possession.

3. Naib-Tehsildar Ratlam, issued a notice under section 248(1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short the Code) to the plaintiff which he replied on 10-2-1975 but de hors to the law on 13-8-1975 said Naib-Tehsildar imposed a fine of Rs. 1,500/- on plaintiff and by passing further an order to remove the possession over the suit property. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff.

4. By amending his plaint it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that Thakur Narendra Singhji entered into an agreement of sale with plaintiff ' Rs. 500/- per bigha agreed to sell 5 bighas land for a consideration of Rs. 2500/- on Akshay Tritiya in the year 1935-36. A sum of Rs. 500/- was obtained as advance by said Thakur Narendra Singh and thereafter he delivered the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. For the balance amount of consideration Rs. 2,000/- it was agreed between the parties that it shall be paid by the plaintiff in 15 instalments ' Rs. 135/- per year. A document to that effect Ex.P/1 was executed by said Narendra Singh in favour of plaintiff. Hence, it has been prayed by the plaintiff that he is entitled for the declaration that he has acquired Bhumiswami right by adverse possession and the order passed by Naib-Tehsildar Ratlam, dated 13-8-1975 is ineffective. A decree of permanent injunction has also been sought that defendant shall not interfere in the possession of plaintiff on the suit property.

5. The State Government by filing written statement refuted the plaint averments. Although it has been specifically admitted by him that for last 12 years the plaintiff is possessing the suit property. In the written statement it has been prayed that the suit be dismissed.

6. The learned trial Court on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and denial in the written statement framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed it.

7. The plaintiff assailed the judgment of learned trial Court dismissing his suit by filing first appeal. The learned First Appellate Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal of plaintiff by passing a decree of injunction.

8. In this manner this second appeal has been filed by the defendant-State Government.

8A. This Court on 7-10-1999 admitted this second appeal on the following substantial question of law:

Whether a decree for permanent injunction alone, was rightly granted by the Lower Appellate Court in favour of Respondent/ plaintiff?

2. Whether the findings recorded by Lower Appellate Court are illegal and perverse?

9. Shri. Mitha learned Government Advocate has submitted that learned First Appellate Court was not correct in passing the decree of injunction and the findings of learned Appellate Court are illegal and perverse.

10. None has put appearance on behalf of respondent though served.

11. Having heard learned Government Advocate and after perusing the record I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Regarding Substantial Question of Law No. 1.

12. On bare perusal of the findings recorded by learned First Appellate Court from para 5 onwards this Court finds that defendant-State Government has adm