The court's decision emphasized the importance of evidence in establishing ownership and possession of disputed land, and the application of procedural rules such as Order 23, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Alok Aradhe, J.:-

This appeal is by the defendants which was initially admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the finding of the two Courts below that the land in dispute is part of Khasra No. 431/8 belonging to the plaintiff, is perverse ?

2. Whether the land in dispute is of the ownership of the Police Department of State of Madhya Pradesh ?”

Thereafter vide order dated 29-8-2013 following additional substantial questions of law were framed:

“3. Whether suit suffers from the defect of non-joinder of necessary party as the State Government was not impleaded as defendant in the suit ?

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable, under Order 23, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the previous suit was withdrawn without seeking leave to file a fresh suit ?

5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?”

2. This appeal arises from a suit for declaration and Permanent Injunction instituted by respondent plaintiff. The claim in the suit is based on the ground that Mrs. Lalita James was the owner of Sub-Plots No. 16 and 18 which form part of Plots No. 431 and 432, sheet No. 273 admeasuring 3587 sg. ft. situate adjacent to Police Station Gorakhpur. The plaintiff purchased the suit plot vide registered sale deed dated 20-8-1982 from aforesaid Lalita James and she was placed in possession. The plaintiff got her name mutated in revenue records. On 20-3-1985 the plaintiff went to suit plot along with labourers to fence the suit plot, however Town Inspector of the police Station, Gorakhpur restrained the plaintiff from doing so and informed her that the suit plot belongs to police department. The plaintiff thereupon initiated proceeding for demarcation of the plot. The notices were issued to the defendants to remain present on 28-4-1985. However, none appeared on behalf of the defendants. The Sub-Engineer of Public Works Department was present on behalf of the defendant No. 6 who was satisfied with the demarcation. The plot No. 430 as well as the suit plot was demarcated. The demarcation report dated 11-5-1985 was submitted by the Revenue Inspector. However, defendants kept on interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot.

3. The plaintiff thereafter filed civil suit, namely, C.S. No. 3-A/1986 seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. However, on the assurance of Deputy Inspector General of Police the suit was withdrawn on 18-11-1987. However, once again the police officials started interfering with plaintiffs possession over the suit plot. The plaintiff filed M.P. No. 3414/1989 which was decided by the Division Bench vide order dated 6-7-1989, with the liberty to the plaintiff to file an action in the civil Court and obtain proper relief as she may feel entitled to. The plaintiff once again filed an application before the Tahsildar for demarcation of plots. The Revenue Inspector on 5-6-1990 submitted report to Tahsildar that Town Inspector, Gorakhpur did not permit to demarcate the suit plot. The Tahsildar in ordersheet dated 10-6-1990 recorded the fact that officers of the police department are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit plot. The plaintiff also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 2000/-.

4. The defendants filed the written statement in which inter alia, it was pleaded that the suit is barred under Order 23, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure as previous civil suit was withdrawn without seeking the leave to institute a fresh sail. It was further pleaded that the suit suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary party, namely, the State Government and the suit is barred by limitation as the suit plot is in possession of the police department since 1927. It was pointed out that vide Notification da