The judgment establishes that the right of Bhumiswami through adverse possession must be supported by admissible evidence, and lawful possession is essential for the grant of perpetual injunction.

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

1. The Appellant-Plaintiff has directed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.9.09 passed by Additional Judge to the court of Additional District Judge, Mauganj, district Rewa in Civil Regular Appeal No. 13-A/09, whereby allowing the appeal of the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the judgment and decree dated 1.10.08 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Mauganj in Civil Original Suit No. 11-A/03 decreeing the suit of the Appellant for perpetual injunction refusing the prayer of declaration with respect of the disputed agricultural land, the entire suit has been dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the Appellant herein filed the impugned suit for declaration and for perpetual injunction against the Respondents contending that initially the disputed land described in the plaint was belonging to the Pawaidar. Under the authority of the Pawai in the year 1921-1922 one Trivikram Prasad mortgaged the same with possession with his grand grand father and since then through his predecessors of the family, he is coming in possession of such land. Subsequent to such mortgage said Pawaidar or his L. Rs. had never redeemed the same, on which the Appellant has become the Bhumiswami of it. It is also stated that in the year 1956 such land was purchased by his Uncle Shobhnath from the family of the Pawaidar and since then he remained in possession of the same in his life and after his death the Appellant is coming in possession of the same. During this period by spending the huge amount he developed the same. In such premises, even after perfecting the right of Bhumiswami over the land by him, the Halka Patwari has recorded the same in the name of State of M.P. in the records of rights. It is also stated that in any case the Appellant being in uninterrupted long possession of the disputed land as Bhoomiswami in the knowledge of the official of the Respondent No. 3 -State, he has perfected his title by adverse possession. Contrary to all such rights of the Appellant, the Respondent No. 3 has alloted the aforesaid land to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on patta, on which to protect his right and possession of the land, he filed the impugned suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the Respondents.

3. In the written statements of Respondent No. 3 and the Tahsildar by denying the averments of the plaint, it is stated that initially such land was belonging to the Pawai but on abolition of the Pawai system, same was vested in the State of M.P. and since then it being remained in possession of the State of M.P. as Bhumiswami was also recorded in the records of rights accordingly. Mere on the basis of unauthorized possession the Appellant for some time, it could not be inferred that he has perfected any right or title over the disputed property. It is also stated that in the year 1993 by initiating the proceeding under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code by imposition of fine, the Appellant was dispossessed from the disputed land and accordingly he was not remained in possession of the same and prayer for dismissal of the suit is made. Some averments for allotment of such land on patta to the Respondent No. 1 and 2 are also made in the written statement.

4. In the written statement of Respondent No. 1 and 2 it was stated that subsequent to abolition of Pawai, such land was vested in the State of M.P. and was never remained in the title or possession of the Appellant. Subsequently the same was alloted with possession to them on patta by the State of M.P. Pursuant to that, they have become Bhumiswami of it. In such premises, by denying the averments of the plaint, the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.

5. In view of pleadings of the parties, after framing the issues, the evidence was recorded. On appreciation of the same, the trial court dismissed the suit of the Appellant for declaration but holding him in p