Bhumiswami rights cannot be acquired through adverse possession.

M.K. Mudgal, J.

1. The appellants / plaintiffs have filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.8.2005 passed by the Court of First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Satna in civil appeal no. 64-A/05 affirming the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2002 passed by the Court of Second Civil Judge Class-2, Satna in Civil suit no. 6-A/01, whereby the suit filed by the appellants / plaintiffs for declaration of title to the survey no. 533 area 0.30 acres and survey no.538 area 21.49 acres situated in village Sarai, district Satna was dismissed. In this appeal the appellants are referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondents as the defendants.

2. Undisputed facts of the case are that Arjun Singh was the Bhumiswami of the disputed agricultural land bearing surveys no. 535 and 538. He died issue-less. Proceedings under section 177 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code were initiated by the court of the Tahsildar, Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna bearing case no. 2-A/26/98-99 for declaration of the said land to be an abandoned holding and in this regard an order dated 3.10.2000 Ex.P/48 was passed by the Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title to the court of the Second Civil Judge Class-2, Satna alleging that the said disputed land was given by the earlier Bhumiswami Arjun Singh to Mahesh Prasad as sub tenant. Mahesh Prasad who was the ancestor of the plaintiffs had been in possession of the disputed land till his death. Thereafter, the plaintiffs being their heirs became sub tenant and have been cultivating the land since then because of that the plaintiffs have acquired right of occupancy tenant as defined under section 185 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and they have became Bhumiswami by operation of law as per section 190 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. The disputed land has never been abandoned land. The order Ex.P/48 passed by the Tahsildar is totally contrary to law. When the proceedings were initiated before the Court of Tahsildar, objections were filed by the plaintiffs claiming themselves to have Bhumiswami rights to the land but the said objections were rejected by the court of Tahsildar arbitrarily. On the aforesaid grounds, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief as stated earlier.

4. None appeared on behalf of the defendants though served and written statement had not been filed by the defendants / State Government.

5. Heard the arguments of both the parties.

6. The learned trial court having considered the recorded evidence has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case that the disputed land was leased out by the deceased Arjun Singh to Mahesh Prasad who was allegedly the ancestor of the plaintiffs. The entries made in the khasras in the name of Mahesh as sub tenant have no relevance because the Competent Authority has not passed any order to make such entries in the khasra in the name of Mahesh Prasad because of that the said entries being contrary to law cannot support the claim of the plaintiffs. The learned appellate court also having considered the merit of the case has confirmed the findings of the trial court holding that as no lease deed allegedly granted by the deceased Arjun Singh has been produced on record. Apart from this, it has not been pleaded and proved by the plaintiffs' evidence as to when Arjun Singh died and in which year the land was leased out to Mahesh Prasad. The Appellate court has further observed in para 16 that it has also not been brought on the record when Mahesh Prasad died. Though, the defendants / State Government have failed to file their written statement yet the plaintiffs had to prove their case by their reliable and cogent evidence and so the findings recorded by the trial court were affirmed by the appellate court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs